Compare these illustrations from the Final Phase 2 Feasibility Study.
The top is the Water Street site. The bottom is the Innova Park site. So tell me. Which one looks more appealing? More colourful? More exciting? Bigger? You would never know that the Water Street building is smaller than the Innova Park structure. There is absolutely no common reference points to compare them. Accident? Not on your life. Salesmanship 101.
The cross section view of each location is different. The angle makes the Water Street site, the top one, look much more spacious. More appealing to the eye.
The two rinks are exactly the same in every way but you would never know it by these images. Also, the event space is shown on the top while it is not on the bottom. That is because the event space at Innova Park is not under the seats as it is at the Water Street site. The conference area has been left out of the Innovative Park structure. Misleading. Accidental? I believe not.
The above shows the main floor layout. The problem is that the Water Street Floor Layout (top view) and the Innova park layout (centre view) are shown at different scales. If you enlarge the Innova Park structure so that the two rinks are the same size, the Innova Park looks much larger and that is because it IS much larger than the Water Street site.
Also, the Innova Park floor plan (centre view) shows the exhibition area divided up into smaller rooms while the Water Street site has it open. Water Street even has boats on the rink. The Innova Park site does not include the rink as part of the conference/exhibition area like the Water Street site illustration does. I do not see any reason why it could not be used exactly as it is on the Water Street site. In fact, there is no space marked on the legend as Conference Centre space for Innova Park. If you look at the illustration, Innova Park has no conference space at all. None. Interesting that when you consider that 50,000 sq ft of conference space is a major in selling point of The Water Street site. Fifty thousand versus zero. Fair?
I created a third illustration (bottom view) using the Innova Park design by removing the walls in the conference/exhibition area and making the rink part of the exhibition area. Much more space for conferences and exhibitions. More spacious looking period. In fact, the conference area can be increased at the Innova Park site quite easily as space for construction on the site is virtually unlimited .
These are a couple of things that I have noticed. The consultant tried very hard to make the Water Street site look better than the Innova Park site but if you compare them equally, there is no way that is true. Its obvious to the eye. It HAS to be more expensive to build at Water Street. It is costing over $30 million for site prep. Innova Park requires road construction, true, and that costs money, but then you HAVE roads and lights etc. Water Street, you spend $30 million and you have nothing but a hole.