We read Kathryn Morses October 15th post on Facebook on the Halifax Forum with interest, and we want to make sure our position is clearly understood, because we believe we agree on more than the newsletter suggests.

We support rebuilding the Forum. Like you, we see the Forum as the recreational heart of this city. Our concern is not whether the Forum is rebuilt, but what the rebuild delivers. As planned, the project spends $140+ million and rising and creates no new ice. Halifax would take two surfaces offline for around four years and end up with exactly the same two. In a city the April 2026 staff report says is already short 136 hours of prime time ice every week, about three arenas’ worth, we believe a project of this size must add ice. Given how little has been invested in new ice in Halifax proper for many years, we cannot imagine another multi million dollar arena being built here soon after the Forum is complete. This rebuild is the opportunity, and likely the only one for a generation, to add a surface. It is important to remember that a third ice surface was part of the original plans. The Forum’s 2013 redevelopment proposal called for three rinks, and the third was dropped only after a staff review based on arena inventory, the same approach the 2026 report now says lacked real demand analysis. We are asking that the redesign restore what was originally planned and include, at a minimum, a third surface.

Our second ask is about sequencing, not delay for its own sake. Alternative ice should be built and operating before the Forum is torn down, so that hockey, ringette, figure skating and speed skating are not pushed into crisis during construction. Losing two surfaces from a system already this far behind would mean shorter games, fewer practices, children on the ice at 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., and associations told to stop growing. Interim ice does not have to take years: air supported domes can be built in months, covered outdoor rinks in a single construction season, and both last for decades, adding lasting capacity rather than a stopgap. We are not proposing specific locations; we are asking council to direct staff to cost these options so council can compare them properly.

On cost. We take the cost of delay seriously. But it has to be weighed against the cost of spending $140 million and rising on a facility that adds no ice to a system that needs about four new surfaces. The $3.5 million spent on design deserves to be kept in perspective. It is less than 3 percent of the Forum project’s $126 million budget, and about 1 percent of the city’s $316.7 million capital budget for this year alone. Much of that design work could also carry into a redesign. Protecting a $3.5 million investment is not a reason to lock in a $126 million facility that adds no ice for decades. As for the $148 million figure, it comes from an internal city report that set out the redevelopment options and their estimated costs. That range was the basis for our concern that the project’s cost is continuing to climb, which staff’s decision to pause the demolition process has since confirmed.

On the building’s condition. The Forum is in fact open 98 percent of the time outside power related issues. The Civic, the second surface on the property, is in good condition and rarely closes except for power issues, and the adjacent community centre has never been brought forward with structural concerns. The building needs investment, but it is still serving thousands of skaters every week, and it is far from a facility that cannot be kept running safely while replacement ice is built.

On attendance. We would be grateful if someone could share the source for the 350,000 ice related and 400,000 non ice visitor figures. We have not been able to find any study that counts attendance at the rinks, and most hockey games and many Forum events are free and uncounted. Additioally, we can cite several instances whereas the Forum Association has changed their own reporting of these numbers. Even taking those numbers as given, ice accounts for nearly half of all visits from just two rinks, which run seven days a week for most of the year. By operating time, the ice is the building’s primary use.

The newsletter notes that practical, compelling alternatives may come forward for council’s consideration. That is exactly what we hope to bring. We would very much welcome the chance to meet with you, as you represent many of our families, to walk through the numbers and hear your concerns directly. We are all volunteers trying to get this right for the children we serve, and we believe the best decisions come from working together.

 Halifax Hawks