Why are we rushing into this convention centre thing?
Is this an emergency?
I've read everything that Tim Bousquet has written on this topic (have you?), none of it was made up, and very very little of it can even be classified as opinion.
All he has ever asked is that we examine the numbers before we jump in - that's like checking to make sure the water is deep enough to dive. He has given enough examples of things that simply don't add up, or look to have been done to prove a desired outcome, rather than to inform a decision, that warrant a careful third party examination.
I think it's safe to say that most people will support a new convention centre. But that is NOT the issue. Here are some issues:
This is a P3 Project. Don't let anyone pretend it isn't. It is a private company building and owning a building and getting credit and financing based on a guarantee of an income stream from the public purse. A Public/Private/Partnership. (that's 3!). Why are people saying it isn't when it clearly is?
This project forces HRM to give special treatment to one landowner over all others in the downtown by giving them an exclusion from one of the tenets of HRM By Design. (height only) I have no comment to make on the design itself.
This project puts the convention centre in a place that is probably the worst place for tourism in downtown Halifax after dark (have you been to that part of Argyle on a Friday night?). Putting a convention centre where none of the rooms have a view of our harbour is as misguided as, say, putting an art gallery, a building where everyone is looking at what's on the walls and where light can damage the contents, on our waterfont. The centre is being sold as a tourism generator, but does not give any of the convention space a view of why we are here - our Harbour. They may see some good fights in front of the Toothy Moose, but that is not the message we want to send tourists.
But worst of all, this is all apparently being forced on us without a solid business case, twisted numbers, and classic square peg in round hole logic. "We know it doesn't fit, but if we hit it hard enough with a blunt instrument, for long enough, we can drive 'er in". That is what it looks like to me.
Let's stop, take a breath, and examine this thing with the care and attention it deserves. Surely that makes sense?
I don't think Tim Bousquet is acting like an activist here. But even if he is, there is a famous saying about activists, and that is that even if we believe they are wrong, we can't afford for them to be right. I think that applies in this case. So at least prove that the numbers, real numbers not made up by TCL to lubricate that square peg, support the project before investing in this scheme. It smells like Floridian swampland to me. Are you buying?
I have an idea... let's do the audit before the money is gone this time.
2 comments:
A point of mention... There is a lovely art gallery on the Waterfront in Historic Properties called Argyle Fine Art. Lovely place.
Also, good points.
With reference to the term, Art Gallery, I was referring to something like a public art gallery. For example, if the AGNS wanted a new home, what a total waste of our waterfront that would be if it were to go there! A very simple, basic tenet of waterfront planning is to never put something on a waterfront that does not need to be there, or does not benefit form being there. I think there are a few good public uses for our waterfront not yet achieved - a performing arts centre with a stage backdrop of the harbour, an aquarium, a private yacht marina (lots of tourism to attract to the downtown for Argyle Fine Art to sell to). And, yes, maybe even a convention centre. Those visitors at least need to see the ocean while they are here.
Post a Comment