If you doubt these are topsy-turvy times, consider that mayor Peter Kelly is now held up as Halifax’s foremost example of clear thinking.
Building a new convention centre in downtown Halifax is a “no-brainer,” Kelly told a daily newspaper last week, and the comment was placed in a headline on the front page and plastered about town in several hundred boxes. Plenty of businesspeople, bureaucrats and politicians agree with Kelly; with planning for it well underway, they say a new convention centre is a good investment that will bring a much-needed boost to downtown.
The proposal calls for 120,000 square feet in new convention space (the existing World Trade and Convention Centre is about 50,000 square feet) on the blocks once occupied by the old Chronicle-Herald and Midtown Tavern buildings. The centre will open out to Argyle Street, but will extend underground as the hill rises up to Grafton and Market Streets. An 18-storey hotel will tower above the lower block, and a 14-storey office building above the upper block. Grafton Street will be partly covered, with restaurants and shops at street level.
To make the centre a reality, taxpayers will be asked to pony up as much as $100 million. Scott Ferguson, president of Trade Centre Limited, which manages the existing World Trade Centre and would operate the new convention centre, says the 1980s-era WTC is an outdated space, too small and inflexible, and that an expanded facility will allow his organization to attract larger conventions, and host multiple smaller conventions concurrently. Those larger number of conventioneers, he argues, will in turn bring economic good times to Halifax.
“You’re bringing hundred of thousands of people into the market, not because it’s Halifax— they’re here because they’re street sweepers, or they’re arborists, but they’re in Halifax because that’s where the meeting is,” says Ferguson. “So you have 1,000 of them. They spend three times more than the average tourist does, they come in groups of 500 or 1,000, and they take friends and family with them and they stay and they travel the province and they go back and they talk about what a wonderful place Halifax is, and they come back again.”
That pitch is the essence of a heated public relations effort. Ferguson is appearing on radio talk shows and before newspaper editorial boards, citing economic impact studies and consultant reports to make the sell. The Chamber of Commerce is writing op-ed pieces, and Paul MacKinnon, president of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, is busily Twittering away, urging his followers to swarm online polls about the convention centre with “yes” votes. The development industry is likewise in favour of the proposal, as is FUSION, the networking group of young professionals who hope to soon take their places among the city’s elite business classes.
The full-court PR press is evidently having its effect. My informal vox pop interviewing finds broad support for the convention centre, with an even greater invective directed at the Heritage Trust, the main group that has expressed opposition to the project. “They’re Nazis!” three separate interviewees have told me, comparing a heritage preservation society to the mass murderers of millions of people. A satiric video making its way around the internet goes one step further: in the video, even Hitler expresses his dismay at the idiotic arguments of Heritage Trust—Heritage Trust is worse than Hitler!
Surely it will only be a matter of time before pollster Don Mills informs us that only malcontents and the unintelligent oppose the new convention centre. And, sure enough, a half-dozen of my interviewees tell me that building a convention centre is a “no-brainer.”
None of the six were aware they were mouthing Peter Kelly’s words.
Certainly, downtown Halifax is struggling, retail business can use a boost and government has a role to play in revitalizing the city’s core. The question then is: Is the convention centre the best use of taxpayer money to help downtown?
Problem is, there’s no way for the public to answer that question, because nearly all the information related to the convention centre proposal is not publicly available.
The secrecy started right at the start, in 2008, when the city, province and Trade Centre Limited put out a request for proposal, asking six developers to put forward their ideas for a new convention centre. In secret deliberations, a small group of bureaucrats decided that the best plan was put forward by Joe Ramia’s Rank, Inc. Beyond platitudes, we’re still not told why Ramia’s plan was better than the other five.
Since then, Ramia has published a lot of pretty concept drawings for the centre, but beyond the 14- and 18-storey buildings, he has given no detail whatsoever as it relates to how much office and hotel space the buildings will hold.
Whatever the office space, Ramia claims to have verbal commitments for leasing 75 percent of it. “These are big, international companies,” he tells me. “We’re talking 100-, 200-, 300,000 square feet each.”
If this claim is true, Ramia has managed to pull off something that has eluded every other developer in Halifax. Over a million square feet in office space has been approved for development downtown, but developers aren’t much constructing buildings because there’s not demand for the space.
“The harsh reality is that demand no longer exists to warrant [office space] development [downtown],” writes local real estate appraiser Mike Turner, a sentiment echoed by the international firm Cushman & Wakefield, which, citing Ramia’s development, says a “concern for developers could be the increase in space available in the Central Business District and the possible trend that downtown Halifax is losing some of its appeal as the place to do business.”
In other words, Ramia’s development could be so large that it floods the market with office space, causing a collapse in already low rental prices and destroying the business case for any further development. That would be the case especially if Ramia is, with government subsidy, merely low-balling lease prices and attracting existing downtown firms to his building.
And that subsidy isn’t just the $100 million. HRM By Design planning rules that guide development downtown place a nine- and seven-storey height limit on the blocks owned by Ramia, but with the addition of a “significant” public amenity like a convention centre in the basement, those height limits are doubled. Regardless, Ramia declines to say which firms have committed to leasing from him.
As for the convention centre part of the development, there exists no business plan for it as yet. Those details, we’re told, will come April 19, when Ramia will present his specific proposal to provincial infrastructure minister Bill Estabrooks.
There are, however, business analysis and economic impact reports that say the expanded convention centre makes economic sense. At least, that’s what we’re told they say.
The province and Trade Centre Limited contracted with four different consultants to analyze the proposed expansion—Deloitte and HLT Advisory looked at the business case, Criterion Communications looked at “business prospects and implications” and Gardener Pinfold performed an economic impact analysis.
Save the View, a citizen group in opposition to the project, obtained the reports via a Freedom of Information request, and passed them on to me. But, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that allows information that could “harm the financial or economic interests of a public body” to be kept secret, bureaucrats redacted nearly every page of all four reports.
From the standpoint of the public trying to independently evaluate the business case for the convention centre, the redacted reports are of no use whatsoever; the implication is that we are merely to trust the good judgment of the bureaucrats and politicians who have unfettered access to the uncensored reports.
Halifax last experienced a PR blitz on the scale of the convention centre push in 2006, when pretty much the same people now pushing for a convention centre wanted to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Halifax.
In October 2006, Peter Kelly joined a bevy of provincial and federal politicians at a press conference on the waterfront to announce a $400 million “right-sized” Games, and the establishment of Halifax 2014, a committee that would ferret out all the details. Halifax 2014 was made up of Fred MacGillivray, Ferguson’s blustery predecessor at Trade Centre Limited, HRM’s top bureaucrat Dan English and an assortment of local business mucky mucks.
Halifax 2014 put a lot of effort into its PR campaign, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to local advertising firms. Pollster Don Mills announced that the public was very supportive of the Games, but in all the press releases and public appearances touting the poll, neither Mills nor Halifax 2014 disclosed that Mills was paid more than $12,000 by Halifax 2014, presumably for polling services.
In 2007, Halifax 2014 locked itself behind closed doors in a luxury office suite on the Dartmouth waterfront, and proceeded to put together a Games agenda that would cost $2 billion, five times the “right-sized” Games announced on the waterfront a few months before. Moreover, two independent auditors who looked at the committee’s proposal were so alarmed by the lack of restraint on the committee’s part that the auditors interrupted their work to alert provincial authorities; they also reported that the committee was setting up the city of Halifax for a $200-million loss involving the proposed Athletes Village.
Worse still, the auditors’ reports showed that the much-cited, but never publicly released, economic impact studies and budgets that Halifax 2014 used to sell the Games were bizarrely delusional—for example, Halifax 2014 said they could raise unprecedented money through TV contracts, priced tickets for just the opening ceremony at $375 (three times the price for the Rolling Stones’ Common show) and expected fully five percent of the entire population of HRM to volunteer at the Games. And there was no business plan at all for the problematic Athletes Village.
When word of the costs, excesses and bogus budgeting of Halifax 2014 began leaking, the PR machine went into overdrive—even with knowledge of the looming fiscal disaster, Games backers were still all too prepared to drive Halifax right off the $2-billion Commonwealth Games cliff.
Despite what was by then clear (but unpolled) public outrage, Halifax 2014 kept at the Games agenda, and was only stopped because then-premier Rodney MacDonald pulled the plug on any hope of provincial financing.
It’s surprising, then, that many Haligonians are trusting of the push for a new convention centre. That trust is especially perplexing in the wake of the MLA spending and P3 schools scandals that have erupted since provincial auditor Jacques Lapoint released his report in February. We now know that, given the opportunity, politicians from all three parties were ready, willing and able to loot the public treasury, and the P3 management scheme for schools—which looks a lot like that proposed for the convention centre —resulted in at least $52 million in lost value to the public, and probably much more, as the P3 contracts are essentially unmanageable.
Contrast the uber secrecy of convention centre proponents to the openness of Heywood Sanders.
An academic in Texas, Sanders has exhaustively examined convention centres and their promised rewards since the 1980s. (Because he has already been much quoted in the local media, I called several other academics across North America to find a fresh voice, but they all referred me back to Sanders as the expert.)
Sanders has looked at hundreds, if not thousands, of consultant reports that extolled the value of proposed convention centres, and then at the actual real-world performance of those centres once they were built. (See, for example, his investigation of claims made about the Vancouver Centre, at tinyurl.com/VancouverCentre.) During our nearly two-hour discussion, we talk about dozens of cities: Baltimore, Montreal, Norfolk, Boston, New York, Richmond, Orlando, San Francisco, San Antonio, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Honolulu and more. He insists that I pull up on my computer the published reports of several cities’ convention centres, and he walks me through them as we speak.
“I do analyses based on data that’s as substantial and as factual as I can manage,” he says. “I don’t have an argument about Halifax; what I have are a great many questions that have come out of looking at what’s happened at other places, to the extent that it can be documented.”
Ferguson’s argument—that an expanded convention centre will attract more out-of-towners who will bring their families and stay in the province before and after the convention and spend lots of money—is typical, says Sanders.
“The first part is the assumption that, simply and somewhat amusingly put, you will build it and they will come,” he says. “They don’t always come. You build a new or expanded convention centre based on a consultant’s study that says more people will come, and you don’t in the end get nearly as many people as the consultants say you will. In a very large number of cases, you don’t get any new people, it turns out.”
Sanders’ arguments are posted in detail at thecoast.ca, but suffice it to say that in city after city, convention centres’ own numbers show that the claims for increased visitation and spending due to expanded facilities simply don’t hold true. This has been the reality since the convention centre boom started in the 1980s, and is entirely unrelated to the recent recession, says Sanders.
I tell Sanders he’s been discounted by the local proponents of an expanded convention centre; they say he doesn’t study small markets like Halifax’s, and doesn’t understand the Canadian dynamic for conventions.
“I don’t have elaborated data on performance of Tiers Two and Three centres in Canada,” agrees Sanders. “I would suggest that folks should have such data; if such data are available, I’d love to see them.”
The kind of information Sanders would like to see is found, for example, on the Vancouver Centre web site (bcpavco.com), which lists dollars per day spent and the number of hotel-nights spent by out-of-town conventioneers—both in past years, and as projected into the future. In many cities, those published figures show rosy claims for expanded centres are never realized.
But Trade Centre Limited doesn’t publish such figures. The figures are included in the four consultants’ reports examining the proposed expansion, but unlike convention centre managers in nearly every other city in North America, Halifax’s Trade Centre Limited considers that information a trade secret and refuses to release it to the public. So there’s no way to analyze the claims now being made—and, more to the point, there’s no way to hold expansion proponents accountable in the future should their big, but secret, claims not materialize.
There is, however, little doubt that downtown Halifax can use all the help it can get, and downtown business owners I surveyed are universal in their support for the expanded convention centre.
“If they think it will bring even one customer downtown, business owners will support a convention centre,” says Sanders.
But $100 million is, well, a hell of a lot of money. Are the uncertain returns from that kind of investment the best use of the money? If it’s a question of spending $100 million on a convention centre or doing nothing at all, a lot of people would choose the convention centre—but can downtown be better helped by spending that money in other ways?
Sanders points out that the successful River Walk, a stretch of popular restaurants and bars along the Rio Grande in his native San Antonio, was 40 years in the making. “You can’t just make success materialize over night,” he says, and I’m reminded of a recent conversation I had with real estate appraiser Mike Turner, a partner in Turner-Drake, who discussed how the collapse of downtown was likewise decades in the making.
“It was Bayers Lake and Burnside that hurt downtown—decisions that were made in the 1980s,” said Turner, who went on to explain how free and subsidized land given to retailers, and millions spent on road networks in the business parks, made it impossible for downtown to compete.
Those policies were enacted by an earlier collection of business people, bureaucrats and politicians who, like the present set, assured the populace they knew best. Nowadays, city leaders claim they have learned the lessons of the past and support a thriving downtown, but at the same time they continue to subsidize suburban retail development—most recently by expanding the boundaries of both Bayers Lake and Burnside, and by adopting a business park plan that guarantees any business setting up shop in Halifax has unfettered access to inexpensive suburban sites.
Advocates of the failed “tax reform” plan argued they were addressing this imbalance by increasing suburban taxes, giving downtown a competitive edge. (They botched the effort by seeking to impose a right-wing American Libertarian-type tax structure that would shift the tax burden not just from downtown to the suburbs, but also from rich people to poor people. Moreover, the “reform” effort was aimed at residential property, and not commercial property.) But it would be far better for downtown if the city stopped subsidizing the creation of new suburban commercial development with reduced cost land sales, wide-open zoning policies and freeway interchanges. While officials contemplate spending $100 million on a convention centre project to help downtown, they’re now spending over $70 million on just five suburban highway projects that will serve to undercut downtown.
And yes, government should spend money downtown. The new central library is a good start, but there’s plenty more that can be tried. “You try lots and lots of little things,” says Sanders. “Investing in theatres, in dance studios, giving subsidized rents for artists. If those don’t work, you haven’t lost a lot of money, and you try something else.”
Perhaps the biggest boost for downtown could come from implementing the five-year transit plan for Metro Transit, with capital costs of $93 million; the city is now debating various fare increase and property tax options to raise that money, because there is no suggestion that the province, which is expected to willingly fund the $100 million convention centre, is considering much help on the transit front.
But those little investments and changes in policies aren’t as sexy as a new convention centre. Moreover, they don’t put money in connected people’s hands.
“As I’m writing a book,” says Sanders, “I try to look at the numbers and pose the question: If these convention centres don’t work particularly well—that is, not that many more people come, etc.—why do they keep getting proposed and developed?”
His answer: local elites—the chambers of commerce, the politicians, the development industry, the convention centre managers—want to revitalize downtowns in ways that don’t cost them personally, but from which they can personally profit through governmental expenditures, construction contracts, bigger managerial salaries and more votes. As Sanders says, “They propose these things because they work for them.”
Related Stories
Halifax Regional Municipality debates projected $30 million budget shortfall
Commonwealth Games Investigation part one: Halifax 2014 big plans
Commonwealth Games investigation part two: where the money went
This article appears in Apr 1-7, 2010.
Excellent. I was going to point commiserate with you about the lack of public access to information when I realized that here in my area we have that access and it *still* hasn’t stopped local municipalities from doing this kind of thing on three different occasions in the past 10 or 15 years.
Our problem with “if you build it, they will come” has always been that we’ve had essentially similar facilities already in existence, and the demand hasn’t warranted expansion or new development; the excuse is always-and-forever “but it’s not big enough to attract the really BIG stuff!” Yeah — the Really Big Stuff doesn’t particularly want to be in the generally-uninteresting backwater of Daytona Beach, Florida, beach and weather notwithstanding; that’s why they go to Vegas or LA or a major city.
Virginia in Florida
Good luck with alllll that.
I think the very best use of that space, would be to flatten it out & turn it into free parking ! I for one would be just fine with our tax dollars paying for that !
Go away naysayers! With our NDP govt announcing yesterday that the spending taps will be open for the next 3 years and the idea of fiscal responsibility thrown out the window, let’s make this thing twice as big and add the cost to the provincial credit card!!!
When I read these articles, I feel like I am in Deadwood. Except I am one of the extras walking the streets, listening to gossip about what “the mayor” and Swearingen are up to. Another harebrained plan by local kingpins to divvy up what little gold exists in this province. And if any of you c–ksuckers don’t like it…. In the interest of disclosure, I’d like to know: name the list of “mucky mucks” – which interviewees said it was a no brainer – and other people you mention in passing.
Great article Tim. It’s certainly true there are much better places to be spending that $100-mln in taxpayer money, like programs which benefit the public-at-large rather than the old-boy’s club. Scott Ferguson needs to realize he isn’t Kevin Costner, and Halifax isn’t Field Of Dreams. Just because you build it, doesn’t mean they’ll come.
If there is to be $100 million of taxpayers money, I agree there should be much more transparency. We the people should know and have a say. What happens to the present convention centre? Does it have a deficit? How well does it operate? How do the other hotels feel about that the proposed massive, offensive high rise hotel? How will that impact their business? Considering how they have treated Barrington Street “downtown” over the past twenty years with little vision and any real help, I don’t think a larger convention centre will draw visitors to that street. Let’s get imaginative about restoring the downtown first, including Barrington Street . What about upgrades to Pier 22 or the present Trade Centre for larger conventions?
Fuck I love Deadwood… what a great show
“Does it have a deficit? How well does it operate?”
Trade Centre Ltd has been operating at a loss for five consecutive fiscal years, verifiable by Public Accounts required for Crown Corporations to be filed with the Department of Finance. Revenues have been increasing year-on-year but apparently so are costs; any gains made are cancelled out by year-end. The city also dumps a few hundred thousand per year into the company as a subsidy for operation of the Metro Centre.
“How do the other hotels feel about that the proposed massive, offensive high rise hotel? How will that impact their business?”
All of these points were addressed by Gardner-Pinfold in their economic impact analysis, but [redacted].
Ferguson is serving up baloney when he tells you that convention delegates bring family members and stay here and go around the province.
Having dealt with many convention attendees I can tell you that many conventions take place during the school year. The spouse usually stays home because he/she has a career to take care of. I think that takes care of the ‘family’ issue.
Many delegates come for one or two days and then fly home.
Ask for a sit down interview with Ferguson and ask him to provide his data.
Who the fuck brings their family to a business convention? Is he for real?
Where is the Business case? WHERE IS THE BUSINESS CASE? This is the same idiotic logic that caused us to spend $4.5million on the CWG Bid because HRM lacked the common sense to check the economics (not the PR spin) before they spent. The property owners pay 99.9999% of the taxes and get 0% return from a Convention Centre. Only a complete idiot makes this investment.
I’m not anti-new-convention centre, but I agree that many important questions need to be asked (or more importantly, answered) prior to a $100-million comittment.
Downtown Halifax is a product of its own medicine. We had the chance to host the Commonwealth Games and pulled out.
Twisted Sisters is a project that well…..Most likely not going to happen.
And now a chance to build a Convention Centre that will bring business back to Halifax from Moncton (Where most Conventions have now moved to).
All this missed opportinuity it is no wonder that Downtown Halifax has become about as crap as Detroit.
This is a disappointing article that does not present a clear view of the issue. Two major points:
(1) The idea that a $100M subsidy for a convention centre could be spent on anything else is false in practical terms. The province and feds tend to spend money on major projects. Incidentally, HRM receives the lowest combined provincial and federal transfers of any city in Canada.
(2) It is not true that the convention centre is purely a subsidy for businesses. It is part public amenity. Residents of Halifax can use the convention centre facilities and it is a benefit for them to have conferences and events in their city. I live in Vancouver, which next year will be hosting SIGGRAPH, a major academic conference with tens of thousands of attendees that will draw businesses and experts from all over the world. It wouldn’t have happened without a major convention facility and because it did lots of local people will benefit by being able to attend more easily, being able to host attendees, and so on.
(3) The $100M is not going to pay for the construction of the whole development. The full value is approximately $300M. The developer obviously must pay for constructing the convention centre component and the developer owns the land.
I would have liked to see a different, more open process for this development, but given where it sits now I think it’s far better to try to get some investment downtown and work to have the best possible new convention centre. It’s time to start talking about what the building should look like, not whether or not it will happen. The current renderings are very dated looking.
The video that you refer to on the YouTube was offensive. However, contrary to what you have stated, it actually paints supporters of the convention centre as being Hitler and Nazi officers and supporters of the Save our View as being the attacked by the Nazi Convention Centre supporters. The fact that you have twisted this around, makes me doubt any of your other “facts”.
Anyone who doesn’t think this is a good idea is fucking retarded.
You talk about about organizations urging its followers to swarm on line opinion poll…. well Tim what about the heritage organizatins doing the same. In fact I beleive they are the ones who started there online petition before anyone else.
Also, you talk about Fusion members taking there place as the new cities elite…what a rediclous statement…whats wrong with providing oportunity for young people to grow and prosper in this city so they do not move away.
I thank Halifax for committing $55mil to the new library, thank-you, thank-you. I expect this cultural centre will help the common people of Halifax to flourish, I’m sure it will.
Thank-you for bowing out of the Commonwealth games, thank-you, thank-you. Too bad we went as far down that road as we did, ya thanks a lot Fred for that.
Thank-you for abandoning the P3 process, thank-you, thank-you.
Thank-you for Harbour Clean-up efforts, I know it will eventually come to pass thank-you, thank-you.
I’d like to also thank-you, albeit ahead of time, for not selling off our resources to private enterprises, thank-you, thank-you.
I’m not really going anywhere with that, I’m just thankful.
Please do not waste our money on a new convention centre that will be a noose around our necks. These facilities are old news and will have a future as bright as a new newspaper, a manufacturing plant making coal stoves, 35mm film, or VHS players, etc.
To anyone that thinks a $300mil convention facility will pump economic life into this town – show me the proof with examples from other similar case models in Canada or USA. Show me the business plan. (Good luck with that.)
If private development could produce a secure profitable business plan without taking money from the citizens of Halifax, do you seriously think they would need us to be on board? Well?
So, if understand right we are supposed to be excited at the prospect of an enormous office tower being built in the middle of a historical centre. This enormous office tower is designed to meet the needs of an elite few whose actions lack transparency. Even more, the ‘ideal’ scenario involves wealthy people flying in and out of the city to use the enormous building to network with other wealthy people- at a time when curbing GHG emissions is an ecological necessity.
Hmmm. No brainer? Depends who you are asking.
Oh boy! You know I’m gonna have something to say about this, Tim.
Before I say anything, I’m going to assume that everyone agrees that convention centers bring a lot of business to an area. As you have mentioned in the article, you would be hard pressed to find any business owners downtown who don’t benefit from convention business. So, perhaps one common ground that everyone can agree on is that no one wants to see the existing convention industry in Halifax dwindle and disappear.
Another thing everyone has to agree on is to throw away claims from the ‘Coalition to Save the View’, as they are not a legitimate stakeholder in the discussion about ‘convention business’. By definition and by admission, the Heritage Trust’s only beef is with the height of one of the non-convention buildings attached to the structure. Their question and press release about the ‘viability’ of a convention center is a red herring meant to throw the public into a frenzy in order to derail the project. If the new building was the same height as the old Herald building, the Citadel coalition wouldn’t give a hoot about the convention center (except, ofcourse, to protest the construction of a new building in place of… that other building).
Now, here’s the deal for those who are actually concerned about the convention business:
1. First, there is a difference between ‘having questions’ about the convention center, as opposed to only accepting answers that opponents agree with.
One example of these answers that opponents are asking for is “proof that the new convention center will not tank”. Since no one can prove a negative, this is yet another red-herring of a question.
Even when the question isn’t phrased for impossible answers, opponents are not really interested in substantive answers. They are looking for answers that support their existing hypothesis. If convention experts who’ve worked in this business in Halifax their whole lives give an answer that supports the new building, opponents will not accept their answers as expert opinions. Instead, they will cast them as collaborators, elitists, incompetents, and thieves. They will say “we don’t trust you. Go get an independent review”.
So, independent consultants are hired (ala KPMG in the Vancouver example used by Sanders), and when THOSE bonded and regulated independent auditors and consultants come back with answers in support of the new building, their opinions all of a sudden are also disputed. Why? It’s not because opponents don’t have ‘full access’ to the reports. It’s Because the opponents are not really interested in changing their point of view.
You can bet that even if opponents had full access, they would find some other reason to dispute the findings. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book – whoever gets tired first looses. The longer the process is dragged, the less likely it is that the project will go ahead. Investors loose interest, the public looses faith, and the existing convention center keeps sinking into competitive irrelevancy (and we’ve already assumed that no one wants to see that happen).
Do you really think that TCL and the developer are hiding these consultant reports from you because they are conspiring to go ahead with the project even though the reports suggest that they shouldn’t? Do you honestly think that the developer wants to burn $200 Million of his own money in this project just to spite the Citadel Coalition and Heywood Sanders?
2. I noticed in the linked article that Mr. Sanders does not delve into recommendations on how a city can save its declining convention business. He does not note examples of cities that DID succeed in improving their convention business by upgrading their facilities, or provide us with a useful analysis of what factors separate success from failure (as done by Mr. Rod Cameron in February at the Annual NSBI Carmichael lecture). Instead, Sanders prefers to cast the entire industry to the grave. After all, with his logic, 100% of the failed convention centers he studied were failures, and therefore the new Halifax convention center will be a failure as well.
3. Lastly, I guess people can deduce what they wish from Sanders research (or how he presents it). Most folks in the business of international trade and conventions would look at his numbers and say ‘so what?’ For those folks, the numbers are not news, and they certainly do not disprove the need for upgraded convention facilities. Quite the opposite in fact. What he showed is exactly what TCL executives have been saying for years, which is:
— There is a race among convention destinations to upgrade and provide better facilities. Some are 10+ years ahead of us, while others are currently and constantly upgrading and evolving to meet the needs of the market. This has resulted in an abundance of competing destinations with larger and better facilities, which gives them the upper hand in attracting convention business. These competitors may not be getting as much business as they’d like to have, but they sure are getting a lot more business than Halifax.
— If overall demand is increasing, then that’s a good argument for a bigger convention center. If overall demand is dropping, then that makes an even stronger case for facilities that can boldly compete with rivalling cities. A smaller pie means that everyone has to hustle that much harder to get the same slice they used to have, let alone grabbing a bigger slice.
Instead of rolling up our sleeves and jumping into the action, opponents of the new convention center would rather Halifax just sit back and watch everyone else eat.
Excellent investigative journalism Mr. Bousquet. This type of in-depth analysis has been missing in our local media. This is a Provincial issue and all Nova Scotians should have access to this information. Please offer this article to newspapers throughout Nova Scotia, especially in the Yarmouth and Sydney areas.
Excellent comment, issmat.
Lisa Kretz, what “historical district” are you referring to? Do you mean the area bounded by the 1990s faux-Victorian Neptune Theatre on one side, the 1990s faux-Victorian Marriott on the other, the nondescript 1980s red-brick lump of the Prince George on another corner, and the 1980s faux-Victorian Wooden Monkey on the other? THAT historical district? Oh, and having wealthy people coming to your city is generally considered a GOOD thing.
This will be a litmus test for the NDP govt. If they turn it down, we will see that the future will be bleak indeed as our economy sinks below the surface for perhaps the final time.
“Before I say anything, I’m going to assume that everyone agrees that convention centers bring a lot of business to an area. “
That’s a pretty big assumption.
“If overall demand is increasing, then that’s a good argument for a bigger convention center. If overall demand is dropping, then that makes an even stronger case for facilities that can boldly compete with rivalling cities. A smaller pie means that everyone has to hustle that much harder to get the same slice they used to have, let alone grabbing a bigger slice. “
So we should never not build a convention center? By your logic I should probably invest in growing my 8-track manufacturing business. I wouldn’t want to miss out on competing for that shrinking piece of pie.
This was an excellent article. Until reading this article over my Good Friday morning coffee, I was not aware of the secrecy of the convention center proponents. If they expect the public to subsidize this thing to the tune of $100 million, they should be willing to open the business case documents up to public scrutiny.
I find it unsettling that the convention center proponents have managed to turn the public debate on this issue upside down: they are the ones asking for a $100 million handout from the rest of us but somehow they onus has been put on the “save the view” people to prove that they SHOULDN’T get the handout. It seems to me that the beggar asking for the handout should have the onus to prove that the proposal is in the public interest, and that means ending the secrecy and making the business case public.
BTW, my primary concern about this proposal is not the view from Citadel Hill, it is the $100 million handout of our tax dollars without solid evidence being made available to the public that the we will receive value-for-money, not to mention the lack of ability to hold anyone accountable if the secret-but-promised boom in tourism income does not materialize.
Comparing the state of the convention industry to ‘8 tracks’ is uninformed to say the least. Without even getting into numbers and details, I think it’s reasonable to assume that neither of the two extreme views is valid. On one end of that extreme, we have folks who think that a convention center will turn Halifax into Canada’s Dubai. On the other end, we have the fatalists who don’t know much about the convention industry yet can confidently proclaim its near demise.
Actually, I think 8-tracks are a great comparison for the convention industry. Let’s face it, conventions are a victim of the internet and modern environmental sensibilities. Still, I don’t blame the developers for trying to pull a fast one here. In a few years, when conventions are rarer than good old-fashioned lynchings, there will be no hope at all of government funding.
“Without even getting into numbers and details”
But that’s exactly the problem: no one is willing to go into the numbers or details. We’ve basically been told, “trust us. Now can I please have my $100 million?” The public needs a chance to scrutinize the business plan and decide if this is a sound decision, or if we’re throwing money down a pit in the hopes of chasing after some scraps.
Don’t get me wrong, convention centers can be great. Indianapolis has very successfully built a lively downtown around its convention center. However, to think we could become Indianapolis by blindly throwing money at the problem is naive. That’s not to say Halifax can’t do something great here, it just means that we’d like a chance to judge its greatness before we hand over our cash.
“Since no one can prove a negative, this is yet another red-herring of a question.”
WTF??
I’m speechless. My jaw is on the floor, my eyes are rolling around there too, I need to stop laughing and compose myself.
Wow. You loose any credibility you may ever generate with just that one line.
Here is the bottom line from the annual report on finances for the Vancouver Convention Centre which is pretty much in the best place in Canada at the best time in Vancouver:
In Fiscal 2008/09, PavCo recorded a deficit of $12.7 million on ongoing operations prior to Government contributions.
This compares to deficits (before discontinued operations) of $8.4 million in Fiscal 2007/08 and $5.8 million in Fiscal 2006/07.
But I guess this is a red-herring since no one can prove a negative, eh issmat.
I see a nasty negative trend with this beautiful convention centre business, if there was only some way of proving it.
$27,000,000 loss in 3 years for the people of BC to cover………and counting.
The reality is we need one. We are losing conventions to other markets. The business community including the small business community supports the need to build one. We will step up to promote our city to our clients, vendors and out of town collegues to come here.
If we build it, we will proudly pitch it, and they will come!
the Urbanity Salon
post
Last month I attended the meeting on the ‘new centre’ held at the current WTC. Not surprisingly, it turned out to be a pep rally disguised as a discussion. During the question session I asked all these Convention Centre boosters a simple question; Is there any conceivable condition under which you would change your mind about pushing forward with a new convention Centre?
None of them had an answer. No cost, competition, change in technology or civic priority, no crisis in hospitals or schools, no debt, no shortage of hotel space, no consideration of the competition, burden of market uncertainty or deficit. They said openly and firmly in front of the 500 or so attending – nothing could make them change their minds. Again and again the Mayor has taken the same tact. He says “It’s not if, it’s when we build”. In the Metro he says “The new centre is a no-brainer.” even while swatting off the notion that the feds may not contribute and the city would (again) be left holding the bag as we were with the Bedford rink – but of course the price tag on a new WTC is higher and nearly unknowable at this point given the proposed course. “No matter,” he says in the paper; “what’s an extra $30-$50 million.” So these folks are decided, but they are decided in a way that should in itself scare the pants off the average thinking person.
Why?
It is almost the definition of rationality to say that a person is rational to the extent that he will tell you under what circumstances he will change his mind. To know when a belief will be considered false is to know how to reason with someone who holds that belief. It is a mark of psychosis that someone will not under any circumstances change his mind. A person who holds beliefs in this way undermines others tolerance of them as a rational person and severely limits the ability for anyone, no matter how good, thoughtful or patient, to communicate with them.
I have the good grace to accept that the proponents are not in fact psychotic. So I am only left with the notion that they are so driven and tightly bound together by their own various self-interests that they are willing to do or say anything to push this thing over on us.
The proponents beliefs certainly are not based on any business case that is quantifiable because if it were there would be some limit somehow to cost or some concern about competition or market conditions. No limits seem to exist. And anyone can see that is a recipe for disaster.
The proponents say it’s a long term investment only suitable for the “patient investor” and they believe only the government could take that long a view. In fact, they suggest that success has to be redefined because we will likely never see a profit at any convention centre.
I’m suggesting this is “monorail” kind of talk, if you catch my Simpsons reference and should be a giant red flag to the community.
If you “redefine success” to mean losing money hand over fist and enriching a small cabal of backroom boys at the expense of our community’s soul then I’m sure it will be successful.
The worst case scenario is that they are right. That a 20 year old facility is obsolete. In that case we are forever cursed to build and rebuild and lose money and “develop” until the end of time and never succeed and never make money.
I’ve written a lot here but my simple answer is: If a developer has the money to build this thing and wants to do it – AWESOME. However, I don’t think it’s a good investment. If I was a developer I wouldn’t do it and if I were an investor I wouldn’t invest. So as a tax payer why would I look at it otherwise?
JWC;
You’re awesome, you hit all the nails on the head, tightly sealing the lid on the coffin of the argument including, if I may extrapolate, the comparison of Kelly-is-Homer.
Well, maybe that part was just Smee.
That was way better than the first ‘post’ which was too condensed.
Smee, just because Kelly is Homer (no argument there) means that this is wrong. He is a total fool who only parrots what others tell him; sometimes he is told things that are true, sometimes not. This is the former.
JWC, to suggest that a crisis in schools or hospitals could derail this simply shows that you are without any kind of actual argument against it. To turn a phrase, in our society these days those arguments are the last refuge of a scoundrel. Govts do not make profits from building roads, bridges, airports, or other public infrastructure. That does not mean they should not do it.
You seem to be in denial that the existing WTCC is obsolete. I can only conclude one of two things: either (a) you have never set foot inside the place, or (b) you have been there, and are totally in the dark as 5to the demands of the meeting and convention business. Either way would disqualify you to discuss the matter due to ignorance. All you need to look at is the amount of local business that it has already lost to the totally charmless and barnlike Cunard Center to know that a bigger facility is desperately required.
Finally, when we see phrases like “…enriching a small cabal of backroom boys at the expense of our community’s soul…” we can easily conclude you have zero credibility. Not sure who you think those backroom boys are — maybe the people who will work there, or those working in the bars, restaurants and hotels around town that will all benefit from this. And while I can understand how you equate the soul of downtown to the plethora of empty rubble-strewn lots there, trust me — a community’s soul is defined by its people, not the buildings or lack thereof. Yours seems past its best before date.
The reason Mayor Kelly is departing from his usual non-opinionated self when it comes to the convention center is because this is one of the few times where he actually understands why something is needed. The reason he understands is because he (and Councillors Gloria McCluskey and Jim Smith) is on the board of directors of Trade Center Atlantic and has seen all the ‘business cases’ anyone can ask for to understand that this is needed.
I was at the TCL talk referenced by JWC here and saw him ask the “would you change your mind under any condition at this point…” question. While I can agree that the panel’s answer was less than clear, I took that as a sign of politeness from panel members who clearly didn’t want to get into a prolonged (and useless) tete-a-tete with JWC at the expense of the vast majority of attendants.
The question was a hypothetical and leading question. It was not meant to provide a legitimate and reasonable concern that can be addressed by the panel during the Q&A period of the talk. You phrased your question in such a way that no matter what the answer is, opponents will take it as proof that the project should not go ahead.
If the answer was “no, we don’t have any reason to believe that the need for better facilities will disappear in the near future”, then opponents will come back with the Sanders argument, and round and round we go.
If the answer was “Yes, of course. If we woke up tomorrow to an alternate universe where no body does business face to face, then I guess that would be ground for reconsidering the viability of this project”, then opponents will see this as an invitation for everyone who fancies themselves ‘convention experts’ to point out that scenario is infact what is going to happen and… round and round we go.
You didn’t ask the question because you yourself were undecided and wanted to know something about this project that will help you make a decision. This particular question came from someone who is just as entrenched in their opposition as the people he chastises for their entrenchment in supporting the project.
So I’m not sure why you feel the panel should have entertained your hypothetical question when it was so obviously asked in an attempt to ‘trap’ them into appearing unreasonable because they don’t want to spend two hours repeating the same explanations that were just presented in the lecture that preceded the Q&A, specially to someone who obviously didn’t accept a word of that lecture already.
To the honkers of the ‘Profitability’ horn, let’s get one thing straight. TCL is a Crown Corporation. Their mandate is not to be profitable. The facilities they operate (including Metro Center, Ticket Atlantic, Events Halifax and the Convention Center) are considered as facilities that provide an economic return to the public at large, not necessarily to the convention center itself. The government is a stakeholder in this facility and a beneficiary of the economic benefits, which is very clearly explained in their annual reports.
Therefore, the government and the public should indeed be participating in covering some of the costs of building a new center, as well as ongoing operating cost (as is the current norm for the existing center and with convention centers in most cities around the world).
Opponents seem to think that the convention center is a private business. This is categorically false. Jennifer’s of Nova Scotia is a private business. When they spend money to attract a customer, that customer walks in and buys a product, then leaves. Jennifer’s keeps all the return on the investment they made in attracting that customer.
On the other hand, when TCL spends money to attract their ‘convention customer’, that customer ‘walks in’ to TCL and buys their ‘product’, then they walk out and into Jennifer’s and buys THEIR product. Then, that TCL customer goes to the Shoe Shop and buys their product. At the end of the month, Shoe Shop and Jennifer’s turn around and pay their employees from the money they made out of TCL’s investment. Those employees go ahead and buy other people’s products with that money, benefiting the people and businesses in and outside the downtown.
So you see, if TCL was a private business and were able to keep all the money their customers spend as a ‘return on the investment’ of bringing that convention customer to TCL, the convention center will be a multi-billion dollar company. However, since the majority of the return on that investment by TCL goes to the community at large, it is absolutely ridiculous to ask them to ‘show that investment will turn a profit for TCL to balance the books’.
To use an analogy that opponents can relate to, it would be like asking Park’s Canada (TCL) to show that Citadel Hill (convention center) is turning a profit or is able to sustain its own expenses without public money. To follow opponents’ logic, tourism and travel trends show that interest in traveling to Halifax to see one old fort can not sustain the cost of keeping it. Therefore, we should shut it down and turn the site into a wind farm. Nevermind that the public benefits from this structure in ways that can not be reflected in the Citadel’s balance sheet! Show me the numbers or shut it down.
I want to be clear about a few things. First Halifax is totally out of touch about how much things cost – no matter what you may think $100 million is not a lot of money. Second, I am in favour of a new, larger convention centre – as a business owner I can tell you there is no doubt that such a small investment will pay back dividends. And third, the Heritage committee would get more respect from people like me if they lobbied against parking lots by the waterfront, chained themselves to old stone buildings about to be demolished and stop wasting energy on preserving empty lots.
However, and I hate to get in line with the anti-development crowd here, I’m not too keen on THIS convention centre. The reasons are Halifax and city council continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. They get so excited about filling a piece of land that they let pretty much any box go in there. The question isn’t “should a building invade the sightline of the citadel?” The question is “what do we as a city get for the invasion of that sight line”?
I once took an architectural walking tour of the city of Chicago. I was stunned to find out that it was the law that no building could be erected more than 10 stories tall in the city. And that law was strictly enforced. If you Goggle “Chicago skyline” you’ll see why this is an odd fact. Up until recently it was home to the tallest building in the world. The point is the city of Chicago says you “can’t build a building over 10 stores tall…unless…”
Unless what? Well, it turns out if you add public space in front of it you get 10 stories more. If you submit it for architectural revue by a city panel for approval it gets another 10 stories. Put public artwork outside? Another 10 stories. There’s an actual list. For the last 100 years the city of Chicago used its height restriction as a bargaining chip. The result? The most widely architecturally varied, respected and spaciously built city on the continent. And these people love their city.
Why am I against the Halifax plan? They call for another repeat of the same mistakes the old convention centre made. My biggest beef is it’s outer four walls which will inhibit rather than encourage pedestrian traffic. This, like the bad designs of Scotia Square and the existing WTCC, creating a business dead zone. They too have no perimeter of shops or services on the outside. They are buildings that use every scrap of land rather than being “encouraged” to inch back and allow for green space and breathing room from the sidewalk. They are buildings that aren’t contributing any unique design to the city. In fact they subtract from Halifax. And they aren’t alone. On my quasi-residential street condominiums have been built with large concrete walls facing the sidewalk. I will die long before something takes its place to correct those mistakes. Ask yourself, does this building merit a footprint in your neighbourhood for 50+ years?
Attention to space & design means that we could have outdoor cafes that don’t need summer permits to block the avenues. It means a more vibrant and profitable shopping core with people walking, biking and spending. It means a city that has healthy growth that attracts people to its core. This current proposal is another building that is, well, another building. I agree that it’s better that what was there before (and now). But it could be so much more. It’s not as good a deal for Halifax as it could be.
What I’m proposing is a small set of enforced bylaws that stop a developer from invading the view of the citadel —unless the city gets something in return. Not a “promise of potential” profit but a tangible visible addition to Halifax. And the same rule can apply to waterfront developments, high-rises, community centres… anywhere in HRM. You’d stop squabbles between city hall and the public because it’s no longer debatable – because it is predefined. If an architect wants to build the building they want but keep it under a certain height, so be it. No issues, no debate. But developers need the buildings to be taller and our future depends on densification of the peninsula. So instead of saying yes or no, trade something for something. You want waterfront property? Include bike paths. You like that lot right there? Show us your sustainable green design. You want a tower? Go back to the drawing board and REALLY twist those towers to make a more bold statement.
You’d spark an architectural revolution in this city that Canada has never seen in the past century. This is a proven formula in other urban development, not an experiment. And the best part? These buildings will actually make more money, be more desired by tenants and be more visited by consumers.
If you want to replace history, you make history. That’s the no-brainer.
proud but frustrated Halifax resident
(Thank you ‘TheCoast’ for your ear)
Excellent comments issmat, Bo Gus and especially rcrpmn!
Good news.
After today’s budget there will be no new convention center for Halifax. Imagine raising taxes just to give a Halifax developer $100 million. That would cause an uprising to rival the Boston tea party.
Honestly my main concern is that the new convention center will turn the area of Argyle street into a dark wind tunnel. People are always wondering why Barirngton street is so dead? Its so dead because its a miserable street. The wind is always kicking up, the sun is mostly blocked by the office towers and there is a non stop stream of traffic all day. Please don’t let this happen to Argyle st. as well. When people think of Downtown Halifax, Argyle Street is at the top of the list. Outdoor patios where the sun shines most of the day and little to no car traffic to interrupt conversation over a beer or wine. I would hate to see one of the last good spots to be ruined in the name of so called progress.
Right on the money rcr.
To your point regarding having a “permeable”, retail/patio/pedestrian friendly structure, I believe the developer is including such spaces on atleast two sides of the complex (atleast that was the plan last summer when I attended a presentation by the developer). That’s two more sides than the previous chronicle herald building ever had.
i wish people would stop focusing on the view from the citadel and actually talk about the street-scape view. Talk about something that makes sense to people, not the handful of tourists that go to the citadel in July and August.
i live in the north end and have been walking up and around the citadel lately and there is no one ever there – so who are we protecting with this view plane argument?
i’m in favor of keeping a lower profile “European Density” downtown. This is what makes Halifax interesting and provides a middle way that works and will continue to build the cache of Halifax as a great place to visit and live.
Given your disdain for the view from the Citadel — a position I agree with — why are you opposed to the proposed design? They are not particularly tall in the world scheme of things. Why the preference for short, stubby buildings?
I dunno Issmat. I sure do hope the structure includes LOTS of easily accessible retail. But the concept art/3D rendering sure doesn’t look promising. I see a lot of glass — and a lot of stairs. Scotia Square anyone? That designer clearly wanted to make sure it was a good hard climb to get in…
I don’t think I’m being tricky and I don’t think they didn’t engage me because they are more polite than I am. My point is that I didn’t think they were interested in a critical discussion. I truly am. Seriously. I am not wound up about the heights or any of that stuff. As I say clearly in my note; I am only concerned about the cost/benefit to the tax payer and what it all means to our city.
The scraps from the table argument – “you give us all your tax money that should be going to school books, beds in hospitals and peace in our troubled communities and you’ll get the scraps from our table” – needs a lot of support. I didn’t think it was there from an accounting perspective. It’s more just a line of talk.
I am skeptical of it because I think ‘spin-offs’ should be just that – spin-offs. Their importance to the plan has been grossly overstated and far too heavily relied upon. They only materialize if everything else is working perfectly – and if everything else is working perfectly then we don’t need the scraps from the table.
Also, I will point out the obvious – if this argument had been used to build Bayers Lake, Dartmouth Crossing etc downtown then we certainly would not be in this position now. It is the sprawling misuse of resources over a generation that got us where we are now. To use the phrase in the “Kellian” sense; it’s a No-Brainer* to think this idea is a magic bullet.
A couple things have happened since I read this article and wrote the note. First, the proponents revealed that, as I suspected, they don’t have a complete plan and they have asked for more time to prepare it. Second, the people of Nova Scotia anted up about a quarter billion dollars to try and fix the mess the province is in.
My question was, is there anything that would change the mind a proponent. I suggest that these two revelations – no plan and no money at the moment – might give pause for thought.
Look – compare and contrast this development to Francis Fares Dartmouth project. Francis seems to be doing it right. I’m excited about his project. This one just is not well articulated. Even the planners know that or they wouldn’t have asked for the second delay. All silliness aside, I think we are all basically in agreement. This plan doesn’t seem ready and it doesn’t seem like the time or project for such massive public support.
The proponents remarks this week did seem to reveal to me how much stuff they are trying to leverage out of the Convention Centre public money – hotel, condos, retail, office. It is too vague to draw any conclusion but it seems like a very highly leveraged plan to the bad for the taxpayer.
Finally, I’m happy to talk about this more, but could we keep out of the ad hominem remarks. I think I’ve been too bombastic in some of my remarks and I’ll try to moderate a little. We won’t get anywhere if we’re just mad.
John Wesley
Issmat,
Isn’t there some number at which this doesn’t make sense? Currently the suggestion is that at $300 million of tax payer’s money it is well worthwhile. I don’t know. If the cost escalated, as costs do, to $450m plus $20-40 Million per year to run it at a deficit would this still be a good deal for Halifax? If it doubled in price, as these things regularly do as they move off the drawing board, to $600M but through great success only cost the taxpayers $10-$20 million a year to run, would that be the line?
Where do we get the numbers and the notions?
I’m still curious. And it is a serious question. At what point would we ALL agree that it costs too much? It’s the perfect corollary to the question that appears to have been asked and answered to some folks satisfaction “At what price is this a great deal for Halifax?”
LOL @ “right-wing American Libertarian-type” Tim, you obviously don’t even know what that means! Libertarians don’t believe in taxes in the first place, at the extreme, and otherwise it’s the lowest amount of taxes needed to support the smallest, least intrusive government possible.
I would much rather see a 18 and 14 story residential development, perhaps with a hotel, on top of this development. At least then the spin offs from the project would be much less in question, and we wouldn’t be talking about flooding the market with office space. Rentals, in particular, are very hard to come by – especially in the context of modern development downtown.
I can’t disagree with a thing you’ve said rcrpmn – NYC has many of the same laws on it’s books. It’s not about height, purely, and never is – only for the intellectual neanderthal (enter save the view, heritage trust) is this the case.