It’s time to pay attention… to men! Believe it or not, walking around naked in public isn’t a man’s favourite pastime. We buy clothes. In fact, some of us would go as far as *gasp* buying nice clothes! So, where’s the love?

Halifax suffers from an acute shortage of men’s clothing stores. The gap is more apparent when looking for stores that cater to young professionals. The disparity between the number of clothing stores that exclusively cater to women vs. stores dedicated to men’s fashion is most visible in downtown Halifax.

The figures in the pie chart represent the split in downtown Halifax between clothing stores that exclusively cater to men vs. stores that are dedicated to women’s clothing and unisex stores. The study was conducted on January 25th, 2012 and did not include sports-related stores (Cleve’s, Lulu, etc.). The survey covered downtown Halifax as shown in the map below.

So, here’s an obvious business observation: the men’s fashion retail clothing market in Halifax is under-served and ripe for the picking!

And here’s a free tip: the market is even more lucrative if you cater to young professionals in downtown Halifax. I conducted a retail clothing market study in 2010 that estimated an average of 65% of sales of men’s retail clothing in downtown Halifax came from a customer demographic 25 to 44 years of age. According to 2006 census data (latest available at the time), this age category makes up 35% of males in HRM.

So what’s the hold up Halifax? The demographic exists, demand exists, supply is short. A couple of boutique men’s fashion clothing retail stores in downtown Halifax, offering wares at the right price point, will make a killing in this market. Pants, shirts, sweaters, coats, jeans, ties, shoes and suits are a staple of every man’s wardrobe. And you can be guaranteed to have at least one repeat customer (and all his friends)… right here!!

Artist Rendering of proposed new convention centre in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia.

I recently organized a symposium at the current convention center, where I had to cram 100 people in a room made for 80 due to lack of space. I work for a local organization and I expect to be able to conduct business and host local regional or national meetings for my industry in appropriate facilities in the city where we are located.

The scarcity of space is an issue that plagues the convention centre all through the convention season in Halifax. If even small businesses in the local community are struggling to find appropriate space in the current convention centre, I hate to imagine how much business they’re loosing from larger meetings and larger industries.

This new convention centre (ConventionCentreInfo.com) needs to be treated like any other community facility investment. It’s a place that can host events by any community group, not just businesses. We invest in libraries, hockey rinks, community centres, and other projects in the city all the time. They all have similar cost/benefit arguments to the convention centre, where the costs are clear but the benefits are largely understood (and accepted) to be social, not financial. Most people accept this, even if that rink/library/multiplex facility is not in their geographical area or doesn’t cater to their specific interests.

It’s just not fair to turn around and look at the convention centre, which is obviously not in the geographical or interest area of most opponents, and apply a different measuring stick when it comes to the benefits side of the analysis. Just because it will benefit a different slice of the community doesn’t render this an abomination.

If people are going to oppose the convention centre and argue that it doesn’t turn a profit, then why not apply the same argument to the new central library? it can be easily argued that libraries are a relic of the pre-Internet era, when information was concentrated in a few select locations that everyone had to go to if they wanted to sip from the well of knowledge.

The Library is a cost center that provides a service that the majority of people don’t use and can easily obtain through a variety of alternatives. Renting old DVDs, reading books, and flipping through magazines can be done online or through a ton of other mediums and providers. Using subsidized space for community groups to meet can be done by subsidizing existing meeting spaces (that are actually equipped for meetings, like convention centres) rather than building a library and using some of its rooms as makeshift meeting spaces.

But, we support that library investment (nearly $60 Million split between the Province and HRM). We support it because we acknowledge that there are intangible benefits to having a public library. There were some questions about how this library would contribute to the economy, but the majority accepts that the contribution can’t be directly measured in dollars and cents on a balance sheet.

So, let’s not get lost in the minutia of the numbers and demand profitability when it comes to the convention centre. Instead, let’s look at the overall impact. Is it positive or negative?

Will there be more jobs created? Yes. Does it matter if it’s 1000 jobs or 2000 jobs? Not really. Will the new center meet the needs of the community better than the old centre? Just ask the community that uses it or plans to use it. Is being able to bring more out-of-towners to Halifax a good or a bad thing for the economy? It’s a good thing.

The current facility is 25 years old and has reached capacity. Obviously, getting to capacity didn’t happen overnight. We should be happy that Halifax was able to grow it’s convention business over time until they filled the building. Let there be no expectation that a new convention centre will open it’s doors to full capacity either. However, it is crucial to invest in a larger facility to accommodate the current business as well as the inevitable growth over the next 20 years.

Nova Scotia has the highest sales tax in Canada, and the second highest income tax rates after Quebec. We are already getting charged up the nose to live in Halifax and have very little to show for it. For the high cost of living here, you’d think we have some urban public structures that we can point to and say “at least we have this world-class stadium here” or “look at that Guggenheim Museum by the waterfront. It costs money to take care of that!”

My opinion is that if it comes down to it, I don’t really mind paying a few extra dollars on top of my already sky-high tax bill to invest in something other than miles of asphalt throughout the Province or subsidizing commercial tax rates for suburban big box stores. And if that investment can create a few extra jobs and make a little money, that will be nice too.

… … …

(To support the new Convention Centre, please join the online letter writing campaign at WriteSomeone.org – Support HRM’s New Convention Centre)

Reader discretion is advised.

The purpose of this post is to expose the wretched and rancid state of a specific Metro Transit bus shelter in Halifax. This is no ordinary transit shelter; This is the main bus stop at one of the most important intersections in the city.

The corner of Spring Garden Road and Barrington Street is the core of downtown Halifax. As the nearest bus stop to two 5-Star downtown hotels (the Sheraton Four Points and the Marriott Courtyard), it is located where tourists walk up from the Waterfront to take pictures of the Saint Mary’s Basilica on their route to shopping, food, and entertainment.

It is located where workers and business people conduct their affairs in and around one of the largest business towers in Halifax (the Maritime/Aliant Building). It is located where residents from all corners of the city permeate back and forth between retail shopping and restaurants located on both streets. There is one enclosed bus shelter that services this bus stop, with 21 different bus routes aptly servicing it throughout the day.

So behold! Here is Metro Transit’s bus shelter servicing this premium intersection of the only two main streets in downtown Halifax.

(Click to enlarge. If you dare.)

I take the bus daily in this corner of the city. Five days a week at approximately 8:30 AM, I am faced with the same dilemma. Do I stand outside and battle the infamous 50km mini-hurricanes of what is known as the ‘windiest spot in Halifax’? Or do I suppress my gagging and take refuge in this urine-infested, garbage-ridden cesspool of municipal neglect?

When it is raining or snowing, it is common for transit passengers on this corner to compete for the ‘sweet spot‘ in this shelter.  That spot near the door that allows you to hide half your body inside from the harshness of the weather, while giving you the access to quickly stick your head out for precious gasps of fresh air.  We all give each other half-knowing looks to acknowledge the mutual discomfort from the stench of urine and organic decay of garbage that has been left there since last summer.

An older gentleman has secured the sweet spot today, but tomorrow I am going to wake up five minutes early and beat him to it.

Given the importance of this intersection, you would think that the city would pay extra attention to it and make sure that it reflects the best face Halifax can offer. After all, if tourists, shoppers, and business people are not really the ‘crowd’ the city should care about in the downtown district, then who exactly should we bother giving a good experience to in the heart of the business, shopping, and entertainment district?

Yet, it would seem that the universe of municipal priorities rotates differently in Halifax, specifically when it comes to Transit services.

So, this is a call out to:

• Metro Transit
• City Council (in particular our incumbent downtown councilor)
• Downtown Halifax Business Commission (DHBC)

Can you come up with a permanent solution to this embarrassment already? What is it going to take to put up and maintain a proper bus shelter in this sensitive intersection?

I realize that this is the city’s job, but the DHBC has a lot at stake here, so I’m not sure why they’re holding themselves hostage to the general mediocrity of our municipal services, Metro Transit, and city council. A small donation collected from downtown businesses can fund a fantastic structure worthy of this location and its significance. It can be a shelter that’s a joy to use and look at.

Perhaps even a bus shelter with (gasp!) a wall map of the downtown district and nearby attractions? Or (double gasp!) an electronic screen displaying bus departure and arrival information? Slap some sponsor advertising on it and Bob’s your uncle. Anything is better than the current status-quo!

(Click to enlarge photo)

Paul MacKinnon, Executive Director of the DHBC, unveils new campaign at Extreme's head office in downtown Halifax

I say the initiative is unique because, unlike previous initiatives, this one seems to target a demographic that had previously been largely ignored by city and provincial initiatives. It is also unique in its abandonment of cliche imagery that is normally associated with such campaigns (lobsters, waterfront, Citadel Hill, etc.).

The poster below is one of four executions revealed at the campaign launch, along with a new website at www.downtownhalifax.ca. Unfortunately, I only took a picture of this one. I’ll post the rest as soon as I am able to get my hands on them (hear that, Extreme?)

Account Director: Geoff Wills
Creative Director: Cliff Thompson
Account Planner: Martin Delaney
Account Supervisor: Allison Garber
Designer: Amy Boehmer
Art Director: Tyson Hynes
Copywriter: Trevor Millett
Project Manager: Karen Bell

During the campaign launch event at Extreme’s downtown headquarters, I asked the Account Director of the campaign and he confirmed that the departure from using common imagery was deliberate. The DHBC and Extreme group seemed to be on the same page in regards to what attracts the demographic they are targeting, and what imagery is seen as ineffective.

The campaign direction is interesting to me, as it reflects several conversations I have had recently with friends and colleagues that loathed the lack of an ‘after-work’ dynamic in the downtown. In other cities, the after-work crowd is a key soruce of business to shops, restaurants, and bars, resulting in an active downtown core throughout the business week.

Extreme Group is a local ad agency with offices in Halifax and Toronto. The agency received 13 awards in the 2008 ICE Awards, a prestegious annual advertising awards gala to recognize the Atlantic region’s best advertising and design.

CBC.ca reported yesterday (Feb 2, 2009) that Halifax Metro Transit has refused to allow Humanist Canada to place ads on Halifax buses that said “You Can Be Good Without God”.

CBC reported that Halifax bus transit spokesperson, Lori Patterson, said “the transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.”

The story has garnered close to 300 comments in less than 24 hours. A similar campaign launched in England late last year sparked an important debate across the UK. The controversy led to 326 complaints from the public to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here).

This story is obviously of major interest to the public. So why the silent treatment from Halifax newspapers?

If local residents relied on local newspapers, they would have no idea that this debate is taking place, and would have no opportunity to express their opinions about how the transit authority, a publicly funded body, should deal with issues of freedom of speech and religion that are a given right to all tax payers in Halifax who contribute to subsidize the transit authority.

The media needs to ask the tough questions. Would the transit authority allow an ad to be placed on Halifax buses that advertise a ‘Three Wisemen’ or ‘Baby Jesus’ Christmas play at the local church? What if the local Muslim association wanted to run an ad to announce the opening of their new mosque and library and inviting all interested people to join them for an opening ceremony? What about free speech?

Where do we draw the line as to what is appropriate to say, and who gets to decide what a ‘toned down’ religious statement is? Lori Patterson of Metro Transit?

The answer is that unless there are clear bylaws (that were voted on by representatives of the people in this city) against allowing religiously-affiliated advertising in publicly owned facilities and services, then separation of church and state remains the defacto rule.

If Metro Transit was a private company, then they can decide to run whatever ads they want on their buses and no one but their shareholders (and the advertising authorities) can say anything. But the transit authority is publicly funded, and therefore it must conduct itself in the best interest of the public, following the established bylaws, and removing personal opinions and religious affiliations/preferences when determining what is appropriate to be shown on the buses to the public.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms”:

• freedom of conscience and religion;

• freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• freedom of association.

Are we going to see the appropriate attention and debate take place regarding this issue? Will our understanding of applied freedoms be enhanced by this event? This is a call to the Chronicle Herald and other media outlets in Halifax. Please give this issue the attention it deserves. (Edit: The Chronicle Herald published the story a couple of hours after this blog was posted).

The latest city council meeting on Tuesday December 9 has provided the media with much fodder. Among the blunders was a report from city staff that studied increasing transit service to suburban and rural areas and recommended that the cost be paid for more by those residents who live in those areas. The suggestion follows the ongoing effort by the tax-reform committee to introduce a service-based tax system in the city instead of the current system that doesn’t take into consideration the cost of providing certain services in one area or another, and the availability of those services when the tax is paid.

City councilors expressed their ‘concerns’ about staff’s recommendation, to say the least of their reaction.

What they might not know is that Metro Transit already undertakes a service-based cost/revenue structure with certain parts of their service, but I doubt many people know this.

Let’s take the example of when the U-Pass was implemented to provide Halifax students with unlimited bus usage. In the negotiation process, the student union and the university administration agreed to impose a flat bus pass fee on all full-time students at SMU, regardless if they use the bus or not. In return, SMU asked Metro Transit to provide better service to the university, and unlimited access for 8 months of the year to students who want to use the bus.

Ultimately, a deal was reached where SMU students paid for the full cost of the extra servicing, which was collected through the annual UPass fee. This is public information available in articles that appeared in the university student paper in 2003 when the UPass was launched.

SMU students ultimately ended up paying for the full (unsubsidized) annual cost of the additional services, regardless of the fact that the buses were used by more than SMU students alone, and were existing buses that are already subsidized as part of the transit money the city gives to metro transit. While seemingly unfair, the overall benefit outweighed the cost. Transit ridership gradually increased as more students adopted the new mode and left their cars at home. Less parking spaces were required in and around the university, allowing for more academic buildings and less street congestion.

The precedent has been set for a pay-per-service system. And while the cost of the pass was higher than what it should be, everybody won in the end, and all universities in Halifax launched the UPass in following years under the same fee structure.

So, let’s talk about the application of a service-based tax system in relation to transit services.

A service-based tax is a good idea, especially for transit. Transit is one of those services that can easily be linked to the elusive goal of good and environmentally-sustainable urban design. And so the question of transit planning is ultimately linked to the question of property taxes and their effect on housing distribution and sustainable service densities.

I understand why rural and suburban residents want good public transit options (who doesn’t!). But it must be provided at a higher expense to their tax area (albeit, not without first resolving the question of affordable housing for low-income families, as described further in this comment).

Extending bus lines to every nook and cranny in HRM, then loading the cost of that on all residents regardless of their location, is a recipe that awards suburban sprawl. This backward and reactive strategy has no place in planning a city ready for the challenges of the 21st century; A city with an eye for a prosperous future.

Our local government should work more at creating tax and service incentives to encourage people to live together more sustainably in higher-density communities. HRM staff knows this, common sense dictates this, and scientific evidence supports this.

Yet, people are reluctant to swallow penalties for unsustainable residential choices. They want to live in the quiet country-side large house with a sprawling back yard overlooking a lake, AND they want all the services that a city dweller with smaller quarters and higher rents/taxes gets, AND they want good roads and transportation options to travel back and forth from their oasis to their city work, AND they want to pay less tax than urban dwellers!!

Effect on Low-Income Families:

The argument that charging a higher tax to deliver services to rural or less-populated areas will negatively affect low-income families (who can’t afford to live in the urban core) is a critique that has been misplaced.  This is an issue that relates to the lack of affordable housing for low-income families, not an argument against service-based taxation.

The potential negative effects on low-income households can be solved with a more equitable tax structure in the urban core along with a commitment by local government to provide affordable housing for low income families throughout the urban districts.

Affordable housing and services can exist in the urban core only with a service-based tax system that allows city hall to redirect its tax revenues into creating housing solutions instead of exhausting city budgets on building and maintaining extensive road networks to service few residents scattered all around on the outskirts of a sprawling city.  The city can also use the new tax structure to provide tax incentives to encourage (or even mandate) developers to include affordable or mixed-income housing within their development projects.

Think about it: a low-income family can now live in the urban core, AND take advantage of lower service costs (due to the higher number of people who are splitting that cost between them in higher density urban areas), AND pay an equivalent tax rate to that which they were paying while living in rural districts.  Wouldn’t that be a good thing? They can live closer to work, have better access to public transportation, schools, health care, entertainment, etc.  These are all factors that contribute to that coveted ‘quality of life’ index that Nova Scotia promotes as one of the main attractions to living here.

The current tax system only helps to encourage the creation of ghettoized districts, where low income families are forced to collect in specific areas due to the financial incentive that the government inadvertently creates with a tax structure based on property value. Just ask France about how well it worked out for them to create suburban pockets in Paris where the cost of living was lower than in the city core!

So let’s not say no to a service-based tax system that will benefit everyone in the long run and will bring us closer to an environmentally, fiscally, and socially sustainable city. Instead, let’s take this opportunity to inscribe urban solutions to the low-income housing situation as part of the overall effort to move the city into the new tax structure. The structure that rewards dense community living with financial savings that allow the implementation of excellent public transit options and everything else that our city deserves.

With the closing of the nomination period for local elections of Halifax Regional Municipality councilors and mayor, a number of articles and blogs are lamenting the absence of candidates from Citizens for Halifax. Yesterday’s article in the Chronicle Herald and a blog post from Tim Bousquet of The Coast are two examples.

As a Citizens For Halifax board member (and at the risk of drawing out the critics) I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some of the myths about Citizens for Halifax and its agenda in regards to municipal elections.

The overarching goal and mission of the CFH society has always been to ‘build the most vibrant and livable city in Canada’. To accomplish this goal, it would appear that the best way is by striving to ensure that the people who make the decisions about the city:

- share this vision, and
- are well suited to pursue it, and
- are afforded the opportunity and resources to do so once in council.

Hence, you will notice the apparent orientation of CFH is to focus primarily on HRM issues related to council, council members, candidacy, and elections.

The group formed in late 2007 as a direct community response to a growing frustration with the handling of city affairs. If you remember, 2007 was ripe with controversy for city council, with frequent headlines criticizing discussions related to cat bylaws and chickens on one end of the spectrum, to the Celine Dion debacle and the handling of the Commonwealth Games on the other end of the spectrum. It appeared that council had lost direction and is no longer working on the big picture items that are vital for HRM’s growth and the prosperity of its residents.

From the outset, skeptics of CFH raised two important questions:

- 1 What are the intentions/agenda of CFH (i.e. which issues will you promote in council), and
- 2 Will CFH run their own slate of candidates for municipal elections

In terms of an ‘agenda’, the issues CFH is promoting to council are publicly listed the CFH website (Click here to see the seven CFH statements). They are a result of various public engagement sessions held over several months leading to the summer AGM where members gathered to vote on adopting these position statements. Identifying these issues is no stroke of genius. After all, any resident of Halifax agrees that taxes are too high, public transit is unsatisfactory, and that council is too rural or too urban focused (depends on who you are talking to).

Contrary to some opinions that the ‘H’ in CFH stands only for peninsular Halifax and does not include the concerns of all member of HRM, a crowning big-ticket item on CFH’s agenda is the apparent urban/rural divide on council. This divide is causing a tremendous amount of inefficiency and territorial infighting on council, and dissatisfaction of residents in all areas of HRM who feel that progress on issues affecting their area of residence is extremely slow.

Such stalemate on council is counterproductive to creating ‘the most livable city in Canada’ within our foreseeable future. Many CFH members who reside outside the urban centers of HRM are therefore determined to ensure that ALL members of city council are committed to addressing the urban/rural issue, and that the candidate(s) have a clear plan and intention on resolving it within the next municipal governance cycle.

If a candidate’s platform doesn’t address the deadlock caused by the difference in rural and urban priorities on council, then HRM residents will be hard pressed to believe that this candidate is aware of the needs of the general public and the political advocacy work that will be required to resolve the root of the issue. Such candidate is more likely to to serve their term on council with no significant contribution to the future vision of HRM. The same logic would apply for candidates who feel that public transit in HRM is adequate, or that the existing tax structure is a fair reflection of services received in each municipality of HRM.

Residents of HRM must demand that each candidate (rural and urban) show a clear understanding and plan for addressing each issue as it relates to the future of this great city. Taxes, transportation, sustainability, development, and arts and culture are top priorities of majority citizens and should therefore be top priorities for the next municipal cycle. Cats, fireworks, and booking concerts may not be the best use of time for HRM’s highest municipal governing body. After all, if council is not discussing and working towards the big vision, who else will?

This brings us to the question of whether CFH intended to slate people for council and mayor. CFH received much heat from critics and some members of the media when a CFH public meeting queried participants about running a CFH-endorsed slate of candidates and mayor. Frequent comments from critics noted concerns about ‘lackey’ councillors and a puppet council. Various unattributed hidden agendas suddenly materialized as the ‘unannounced evil goals of Citizens For Halifax’. The society sustained many attempts at discreditation, painting its members as ‘elitists’ or ‘development-alists’
who are far removed from what the ‘real’ residents of HRM are asking for.

Ironically, current headlines are now looking at Citizens for Halifax as having ‘let down the public’ by ‘failing’ to produce candidates for mayor and city council.

Regardless of controversy, CFH will continue to encourage qualified candidates to run and will lend its support and resources to any candidate who agrees to pursue some or all seven areas of priority (identified by CFH members) during their term on council. CFH will work with existing council members to ensure that priority council-time is being devoted to the big goals and creating the most livable and vibrant city in Canada, in this lifetime.

With his background in technology, sales, and innovation, Tim may have a unique edge in the race to represent Bedford following the untimely passing of its previous Councilor Gary Martin. But then again, it shouldn’t be too hard for the CEO of an innovation and economic-research think-tank (NovaKnowledge) to conclude that using the aptly named ‘information superhighway’ is a most effective way of getting his message across, and is a formidable strategy in his communications arsenal.

So what is Tim doing that is so damn progressive?

YouTube, Facebook, and a superior web presence through his website: BedfordLeader.com.

In a stroke of genius, Tim and his team of supporters are releasing a mini-series of ‘webisodes’ on YouTube that feature Tim’s journey for candidacy (TimTV). The reality-show format keeps viewers entertained, as they wait for Pussycat Doll ‘Robin’ to make an appearance and vote Matthew Christie (Tim’s rival) off the race. The webisodes are released on YouTube, and the novelty alone is garnering the initial ripples of successful viral reach. Given the demographics of his constituents, the videos need to have a modest reach to a total market size of about 20,000 people to be effective. To compare, the Rodney-Letterman video on YouTube reached 30,000 people in under one month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLoCCCX-9YE

The second ballast in Tim’s tripod of political marketing is Facebook. Like viral campaigns, a successful social networking campaign is determined by organic factors that rest with the audiences’ perception of the value of the offer presented to them (join this group/forward this video and you will be rewarded with…?). Contrary to what some may think, the promise of financial reward is the least effective reward in viral campaigns. Emotional, social, and cognitive stimuli are much better carrots. (See result of recent IssmatBlog Facebook group social experiment). Facebook campaigns can achieve communication objectives promptly and efficiently.

Saving the best for last, Tim’s website anchors his viral and social networking initiatives in a professional and polished web presence. While the website isn’t exactly a visual orgasm, it is attractive, easy to navigate, functional, and far more superior to that of his only rival: Matt Christie. Do compare the two and let me know what you think: BedfordLeader.com VS MatthewChristieOnline.com.

The year is 2008, and while our promised flying cars aren’t yet economically feasible for mass production, there is just no excuse for a sloppy web presence these days. Web 2.0 is a common platform, and folks are already talking about Web 3.0. Digital media is going ubiquitous, and Mr. Christie doesn’t have the foresight to have a qualified web designer put together a basic website to showcase his platform and experience. Most unfortunate.

I don’t live in Bedford and therefore have no vote to contribute. I also don’t know either candidate personally. However, by examining their communication strategy alone, the least I can do is give Tim major brownie points. Evidence suggests that he has put a lot of thought into his campaign, produced a polished presence on and off line, utilized the latest technologies to spread his message quickly and efficiently, and has a strong following of qualified supporters who seem to believe in him enough to put some serious work behind him. If he carries these advantages with him to council, Bedford should anticipate some exciting things to happen.

Here is the latest TimTV clip. Hard to believe this quality of work is coming from a municipal elections candidate! (April 19 Edit: TimTV is produced in-kind by renown local writer/director Paul St.Amand of Sanchin Films.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2XRfhJhGW8