Municipal Election 2014

Hamilton's Future As A Tech City Threatened By Lack Of Leadership

Together we share the dream of making Hamilton a successful technology city. But to truly succeed in realizing this dream we need leaders who understand the benefits of achieving it.

By Adrian Duyzer
Published February 06, 2014

The following is the text of a speech I gave at DemoCamp on February 4, 2014 at Mohawk College. The DemoCamp audience is mainly technologists (programmers, designers, etc.), so references to "all of you", "this audience" and so on should be read with that context. I have also made minor edits to make it more suitable for a reading audience.

It's a real pleasure to be speaking here at Mohawk College. Mohawk is a great example of the kind of institution you need if you want to build a "technology city".

I'll define what I mean by "technology city", in case it's not obvious.

Simply put, a technology city is a city that hosts a high concentration of technology companies and workers. A technology city is one that is built on innovation.

Turning Hamilton into a successful technology city is a goal that I think most of us here tonight share. Many of you probably agree with me that we have made progress towards this goal. Events like tonight are proof of that.

However, a lot of progress still needs to be made. Tonight I will argue that achieving this goal is in danger - not because we haven't done our part but because our city's political leadership are not doing their part.

Intense Competition

Let me start with the situation right now.

There was a time when Hamilton was a hub of innovation. Then, like so many other industrial cities in the so-called Rust Belt, we entered a period of decline.

We are still dealing with many of the problems left from that loss of prosperity. However, Hamilton is growing again.

A major part of Hamilton's renewed fortunes is the growth of our creative industries, which include tech companies according to the City's official definition. Between 1991 and 2006, creative industry jobs grew at a greater pace than the rest of the local workforce. In 2011, the number of jobs in the creative industry in downtown Hamilton grew by 20%.

Anecdotally we can see that Hamilton has a vibrant and growing technology sector. There are many local companies creating high-tech software and hardware. These companies are having an important impact on our economy.

But making progress is not enough.

We are in a period of intense competition for talent and for dollars. Tech workers are highly mobile and there is worldwide demand for their skills. The products and services produced by local tech companies have to compete for dollars against the products and services offered by global tech companies.

As people employed in the field of design and technology, my coworkers and I know that it is not enough to be good at our jobs. We need to be great at our careers. That means, at a minimum, keeping up with the accelerating pace of technology.

Cities are also accelerating. Successful cities leverage efficiencies that are unique to urban centres, like economies of density and scale, in order to create expanding centres of innovation.

They make smart investments that are targeted not just at growing their technology sectors but also at improving the lives of all citizens by expanding public transit, improving walkability, maintaining their heritage and caring for their environment. These improvements to a city's liveability work together to attract and retain talent.

Our competitors are cities like Toronto and Waterloo, Seattle and Boston. These cities have made these decisions and investments and now generate international prestige, world-changing innovations, and tremendous amounts of revenue from their tech sectors.

We need to take a long, hard look at our competitors. They're doing a lot of things right and there's a lot we can learn from them.

Then we need to create a winning aspiration and set out to achieve it.

That doesn't mean aiming to become the world's most successful technology city. It means defining our playing field and then setting out to win on it. For example, setting out to become Canada's leading mid-sized technology city.

Our competitors would certainly include Waterloo. As such, we are clearly not winning even within that limited definition.

That's because winning this competition requires more than ingenuity, hard work and ambition from all of you. It also requires visionary and informed city leadership.

Bloomberg's Strategy In NYC

Consider Michael Bloomberg's strategy for turning New York City into a successful technology hub. During his tenure as mayor from 2001 to 2013, technology and information services became New York City's second largest economic sector, after financial services. According to the New York Times, New York now has 10 percent of the country's jobs in the Internet publishing industry, up from about 6 percent in 2007.

How did Bloomberg accomplish this feat? The same way you go about tackling anything difficult in business or government: first, get informed. Second, create a plan. Then act.

Bloomberg formed an advisory council, the Mayor's Council on Technology and Innovation, which he stacked with CEOs and founders of VC firms, start-ups and tech companies.

He established the role of Chief Digital Officer and filled it with Rachel Haot, the former CEO of a global crowdsourced news startup. Comprehensive plans for transforming New York into a technology hub were developed. These culminated in 2011 with the release of the Digital Roadmap (PDF).

This plan laid out New York's digital strategy. Its five main categories cover Access, Education, Open Government, Engagement and Industry.

It's an impressive blueprint for digital change, covering topics as diverse as providing free or low-cost Internet access to low income residents, digital literacy for high school students and Open Data.

The items in the Industry category are particularly relevant to this audience. The plan set out to:

Most importantly, Bloomberg and his administration acted. They moved aggressively by funding tech incubators, engaging in marketing campaigns and extending broadband internet access across the city. Their Open Data initiative has released more data than any other US city with more than 2000 datasets available. In 2011, Bloomberg announced that Cornell and Technion, the Israeli Institute of Technology, would create a 2.1 million square foot state-of-the-art campus for applied science and technology on Roosevelt Island.

Three years later, the City announced that all 40 initiatives in the Digital Roadmap were complete.

These efforts have paid off with a technology boom that has benefited all five boroughs and, importantly, the city's minority populations. Since 2010, the number of African-Americans working in the sector has increased by almost 20 percent. The number of Hispanics has increased by more than 25 percent.

And the tech companies certified as "Made In New York" have now grown to over 1,000 strong.

Hamilton's Leadership Is Falling Short

How does this compare to Hamilton?

Hamilton's mayor has some work to do. For starters, he needs to be better informed.

A little-known fact is that the mayor is the only member of Council who receives a budget designated to hire people for policy creation. However, Mayor Bratina's office does not contain any advisors on matters of science and technology. He has no technology advisory council to guide his decisions or create policies.

In fact, Mayor Bratina is fond of pointing out that he has saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands because he doesn't use all of the budget available to his office for hiring staffers. In 2012 he said, "My office has saved $500,000 or about half of the Council-approved budget for the Mayor, including all staff salaries and expenses."

When I asked Mayor Bratina if he has anyone to advise him on science and technology, he replied that hiring this person would cost "well over $100,000 in wages and benefits".

Now, I know what it is like trying to hire a know-it-all with wildly unrealistic salary expectations. After all, I have to hire programmers. But when I hire people I use a simple metric: is this person going to generate a profit? If so, they're worth it.

This leads to a basic question: would having a technology advisor on the Mayor's team create benefits in excess of $100,000 per year? Could that person provide the guidance and create the policy that would generate a substantial return on that investment?

I believe they would. If I'm right, not having that person is costing us a lot more than $100,000 per year.

Mayor Bratina's public comments about the Internet also concern me. In response to a CBC story about unfavourable Google autocomplete results for Hamilton, he said, "That little world of the internet and tweets and is what it is. You don't tend to find busy industrious people making comments like that."

Comments like these bother me because I think that online civic engagement is largely beneficial to our democracy. I believe it's something to be embraced, not feared or discouraged.

I'm concerned that these comments betray a lack of understanding about Hamilton's online community and the broader Internet and what it's actually all about.

Open Data is another good area to examine because it is an important part of a city's technology strategy and because it's obvious whether a city is succeeding or not. Either we've got the data or we don't.

The City's Open Data page lists 48 datasets. Of these, 47 are GIS files that detail the location of various features like roads, rivers and rec centres. These are really the same dataset separated into different categories. Let's call it the GIS dataset.

The second distinct dataset is an HSR transit feed.

This means that if you want to build a map or make a transit app, you're in luck. If you're interested in restaurant inspections, crime reports, air quality measurements, or any of the hundreds of other things that the City is recording data on, too bad.

A year ago, Mayor Bratina wrote a blog post entitled, "Open Data? APPS-olutely". In it, he wrote that, "the City continues to languish in the past in one very important area because of our reluctance to communicate with our citizens through available technologies." He promised that "Before this current term of Council is over, it is my intention to see that significant movement is made toward a smarter, faster, and cheaper way of doing business for our residents and businesses through the use of technology."

I have to say that he really won me over by using a pun in his official communication. So I felt bad about checking into just how much progress on Open Data has been made since he took office in 2010.

According to the Internet Archive, around that time there was a single open dataset available: the HSR transit feed. There are now two datasets available, the HSR feed and the GIS dataset. Given the massive trove of data at City Hall that is locked up right now, I question whether that really constitutes "significant movement" towards open data.

It's also important to note that creating a successful technology city requires more than just policies and actions related to technology. It also requires the right environment to attract and retain creative and technically skilled individuals.

These people value walkability, plenty of transit options, dense and vibrant urban neighbourhoods and cycling paths. They want to be able to walk to work without having to scamper across five lanes of high-speed, one-way traffic. They want their cities to actually build light-rail transit instead of just talking about it.

They want their cities to act boldly in the interest of liveability because they understand that liveable cities aren't just good for attracting and nurturing technology companies, they're good for everyone. They want their cities to value heritage because as Jane Jacobs wrote, "New ideas require old buildings." They want their leaders to value their engagement instead of dismissing them as activists.


Now, I recognize that not everyone shares my views. I'd like to consider some possible objections to my argument.

Some people may not believe that turning Hamilton into a successful technology city is a goal we should pursue. They may not see the benefits or they may not believe it is doable.

I assume that I don't need to convince all of you about the benefits, given that we're here tonight to celebrate local technology.

But is achieving this goal doable?

If we collectively commit to it and then start making the right decisions, yes. Of course, that's a big “if". But that's something within our power as a community. There is no law of physics preventing Hamilton from becoming successful.

Another potential objection is whether it is fair to compare Hamilton with New York City.

Well, keep in mind that Hamilton is a corporation with a billion dollars in annual revenue. That is not small by any measure and it is certainly far, far larger than the company I work for. And we, of course, do have a Chief Technology Officer. This person does spend a lot of time defining, measuring and acting on plans for ensuring that technology is a key part of our company's success.

Lastly, some people will also disagree with my assessment of our current political leadership. They are correct that there are certainly positives.

Although we haven't made much progress towards Open Data it is refreshing that it's something we're discussing and I appreciate Mayor Bratina's stated support for it. The City has embarked on a major, much-needed project to revamp its website. The Innovation Factory receives funding from the City, and of course the City has strong partnerships with educational institutions like Mohawk and McMaster.

The City's Department of Economic Development has produced a comprehensive economic development plan that prioritizes six clusters, including creative industries. This department has a great track record and I know that these clusters will see substantial benefits.

This department and City agencies like the Small Business Enterprise Center work closely with organizations like the Innovation Factory to help tech startups and established businesses. Their hard work is to be commended.

However, these activities do not compare to the informed, sustained and vigorous action that other cities - led by their mayor - have undertaken to specifically nurture their technology sectors. Bloomberg's initiatives in New York City are a useful benchmark here. Few of us would, in my opinion, suggest that we're engaged in anything at that level.

Our Role

If we're falling short, what should we, the technology community, do about it?

Here's a couple of ideas.

First, we need to speak up and put pressure on our local politicians to act. This is often extraordinarily effective, since there's nothing that motivates a politician more than hearing from a couple of thousand irate citizens.

That's a lesson that I first learned in 2010, when the TigerCats blindsided Hamilton by announcing they would not play football at the West Harbour. They insisted on a greenfield location on the East Mountain instead, which served none of the city-building objectives that made spending sixty million dollars in taxpayer dollars worthwhile.

To combat this, we started a grassroots campaign called Our City, Our Future and we fought a millionaire sports team owner and his well funded counter-campaign to a draw. We didn't get the West Harbour but the Ticats didn't get the East Mountain either.

Encouraged by this success we redesigned the Hamilton Light Rail website along similar lines. Unfortunately, given the lack of a political champion for that city-building initiative that campaign has not flourished as we'd hoped.

But then along came Yes We Cannon!, the campaign to have a physically separated, two-way cycle path added to Cannon Street by 2015. A colleague and I volunteered our time to create the online tools the organizers needed to run the campaign. City Council voted unanimously in favour of that initiative last year.

Another idea is to create a formal association of technology companies, along the lines of the Hamilton Halton Homebuilders' Association. Now there's an organization that knows how to bend a municipality to its will!

For example, consider that in Hamilton, homebuilders only have to pay 60% of the infrastructure cost required for new developments. Websites have infrastructure costs too, by the way. If the city offered to pay 40% of my infrastructure costs, I think I'd take them up on the offer.

Clearly, there are benefits in coming together and agreeing on common needs.

I'm sure that many of you have other ideas. This is the year to start voicing them. We've got an election coming up in the fall and if we want things to change, now's the time.

An Extraordinary Opportunity

Because if anyone can create change, it's us.

One of the most important lessons I've learned by participating in various civic campaigns is what an incredible difference good design and powerful technology can make. I recognize that few of you would view setting up an email newsletter as something revolutionary, but you might be surprised at just how difficult things like that are for the average person.

This means your skills at design, development, marketing and communications can have a huge impact. They can make the difference between a well-meaning but incompetent campaign and one that operates with a high degree of sophistication.

Given this, just think of what we could accomplish if we combined the skills, talent and experience in this room tonight in pursuit of a common goal.

Because I believe that we do, in fact, have a common goal: together we share the dream of making Hamilton a successful technology city.

It's true that we've worked hard to make that dream a reality. Our hard work has led to many achievements, some of which you will see tonight.

But to truly succeed in realizing this dream we need leaders who understand the benefits of achieving it. We need leaders who are willing to learn from the example of other successful cities. We need leaders who are willing to ask for help and advice from people like us.

We need those leaders to act, boldly and with vision, to create a new reality for all of Hamilton's citizens, including the poor and marginalized. We need those leaders to act now, because right now we have an extraordinary opportunity.

We could create an informed and visionary plan.

We could put the time, work and dollars into executing it.

We could become Canada's leading mid-sized technology city.

If you believe, as I do, that this goal is within reach, then let's work together to make it happen. Let's ensure our city hears from us, whether they think we're just the "little world of the Internet" or not. Let's disrupt the way politics are done. Let's fill the leadership vacuum at City Hall.

In the words of a Chinese proverb, “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is now."

In the interest of full disclosure: my frustration with the current state of affairs is one reason I'm volunteering on Councillor Brian McHattie's 2014 mayoral campaign.

Adrian Duyzer is an entrepreneur, business owner, and Associate Editor of Raise the Hammer. He lives in downtown Hamilton with his family. On Twitter: adriandz


View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Maybe (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 10:26:46

With Mac moving into 1 James, maybe Mohawk could put its digital design & tech courses in the former SJAM.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Steve (registered) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 12:40:49

"To combat this, we started a grassroots campaign called Our City, Our Future and we fought a millionaire sports team owner and his well funded counter-campaign to a draw. We didn't get the West Harbour but the Ticats didn't get the East Mountain either."

Isn't that what's typically referred to as a 'lose-lose' outcome?

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 15:54:22 in reply to Comment 97499

it's lose-lose in the sense that everyone would have won with the W Harbour, but only parking lot vendors would have won with E Mtn. Despite missing out on a glorious waterfront brownfield opportunity, at least the stadium is in the middle of the city, accessible by all modes of transportation.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 20:18:30 in reply to Comment 97503

Definition of Win-Lose - Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive.

W Harbour would have been a win-lose as the TiCats would have perceived the outcome as a negative because EMtn was the "TiCats" preferred location. I must have missed where the parking lot vendors was mentioned in the article, or had a direct say in the stadium location.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2014 at 07:39:26 in reply to Comment 97507

The Ticats had no problem with the West Harbour through the entire process of selecting a preferred stadium location. They attended all the meetings and had literally years to raise any concerns they may have had about the selection process.

Instead, they smiled and nodded through the process and waited until after the process was finished, the stadium location finalized and the Pan Am bid accepted. Then they went public with a cynical, divisive last-minute demand to move the stadium to an isolated location next to the highway surrounded by parking, so that they would be able to mop up 100% of all direct or indirect benefits generated by the stadium, and to hell with the city's goals of community building and economic development.

They waited until the last minute to put maximum pressure on the City to cave into their demands. Have no doubt whatsoever about what went down: this was textbook Pro-Sports Extortion.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted February 11, 2014 at 09:11:47 in reply to Comment 97518

Ryan, Totally agree. But, still would result in a lose-lose, no matter the journey to get there.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 11, 2014 at 10:59:20 in reply to Comment 97543

I must respectfully disagree. The Ticats wanted an outcome that would push all the costs onto the City and Province while capturing all the benefits for themselves. The West Harbour, which the City and the public wanted, would still have pushed all the costs onto the City and Province, but would have split the benefits between the City and the Ticats.

The WH would have given the Ticats a gorgeous, highly-visible location on the waterfront with excellent GO train and local transit access, good driving access, easy walking and cycling access, proximity to a variety of amenities, around 5,000 parking spots in easy walking distance, amazing opportunities for tailgating at Bayfront Park, and so on.

That is the very definition of win-win (in fact, it was still extremely generous toward the Ticats on the cost side), but the Ticat negotiators - chiefly bully-in-chief Scott Mitchell - were stuck in a competitive win-lose mentality that admitted to no compromise and took a scorched-earth approach to the city's community building objectives. They didn't just want to win: they wanted to win and make the City lose.

If the Ticats had been negotiating in good faith, they would have spoken up in the years before the WH location was finalized. They claim that they did so, in private, but that contradicts what we've heard from other people who were at those meetings.

No, the Ticats had a chance to partner with the city in something exciting and transformative that would have benefited them far more than the end result, a rebuilt stadium on a location the Ticats themselves said didn't work for them.

They only reason they accepted the IWS compromise is that a) they had nowhere else to go (duh), and b) it was a smaller ego walkdown for them than biting the bullet and accepting the WH.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 16:10:01

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 20:06:57 in reply to Comment 97504

Hey look everyone, Allan Taylor is back. Remind me, weren't you banned from this site?

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 09, 2014 at 16:51:56 in reply to Comment 97504

IWS won because of seating, and the seating was based on the possibility of salvaging half the stadium for a refurb, allowing more money to be spent on the other stands and thus getting more stadium for our dollar.

Somehow, the budgetary limits that restricted the unacceptable West Harbour stadium to only 15,000 seats went out the window by pure magic when IO announced they could not save half the IW stands. Nobody has ever explained why Tim HOrton's field is getting an acceptable 22,000 seats instead of the 15,000 that were planned at West Harbor.

It has none of the assets that Bob Young demanded other than more seating, and the origin of the extra 7000 seats for this new location has never been explained. It has less highway visibility than the West Harbour, less parking, a worse view... by every possible metric it fails. Except for seating... and the seating difference is unexplained.

Now, I sometimes wonder if there wasn't more that could have been done to placate mr. Young about the West harbour - more promises about parking revenue at Bayfront Park, road construction, whatever. But either way, the fact that the "compromise" is no closer to his needs than the original plan other than the extra seats smells fishy.

Personally, I think Bob Young has given up on Hamilton after this affair. He'll take our gratis stadium and stay in the business for as long as the new-stadium-smell keeps the Cats profitable, but once the paint starts to peel and the old numbers start coming back? He'll be looking to get out of the football business.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 02:54:59

I'd like to take the focus back to what this article is really trying to say... about the lack of leadership and commitment to creating and executing a vision of what we want Hamilton to become. I wholeheartedly agree with the writer's points.

The lack of leadership is something that has affected Hamilton in many ways, but this is a prime example of where it may affect the city negatively both now and in the future.

Hamilton's economy has changed quite a lot over the past couple of decades, to the point where it's recognized as one of the most diverse in the country (according to the Conference Board of Canada). Some of that may be because we've lost big chunks of formerly dominant industries, but a lot of it has been due to incremental change. And while we don't all agree with everything the city has/hasn't done, overall I think the economic development department has done a good job trying to further that diversification as well as grow specific clusters which are quite broad in themselves. Many individuals have also acted in both small and large ways, and their importance must not be overlooked.

But this seems to have happened in spite of a lack of political champions. Imagine where the city might be if there had been a few? Or even just one? The mayor and council seem happy to flaunt successes. Imagine what they could flaunt if they were to take a more active role developing a vision and leading efforts toward its realization, with the input and help of staff, experts, local residents and businesses. I know we've been down that road before (e.g., Vision 2020) but the cause is still worthwhile.

In an election year, isn't this something worth pushing for? To put it on the agenda? And it's not even a divisive issue like others might be - it's something positive that many can work toward in cooperation, that could benefit the entire city.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2014-02-10 02:56:05

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 10:10:46

I have a problem with this. I agree on the points of leadership in Hamilton being a lame duck. Bratina is a coaster and so are many of the people on council. They found a cushy role in government and don’t want to actually do anything. Bratina’s feet dragging and interference regarding the LRT is particularly aggravating. He is every bit the snooze inducing AM radio personality he has always been and he needs to go.

The problem I have is the Richard Florida-esque obsession you have going on with “creative industries”, “innovation” and technology. None of these things are going to bring Hamilton out of its slump. As a sector, “creative” and technology is heavily in a bubble phase with many startups launching and producing questionably valuable “products”. Very little actual innovation is happening any more. Just have a look at the latest offerings from Apple or observe the fact that the once great innovator Google has essentially become a marketing/advertising company and you start to get a picture of a sector that is highly over-valued. Like the real estate industry in Toronto (or Vancouver, Calgary, etc.) a correction is coming to the tech sector - Hamilton would do well not to place all it’s eggs in one basket and be cautious.

My other issue is that the tech sector does not employ people on the same scale as the manufacturing sector. It never will. You cannot put back to work the same number of people that automotive and steel have been employing for generations - not unless the tech sector does an about face and starts building its hardware in North America again. Apple has made some strides in this direction, but for the most part this is still the domain of China, India, etc. Of course, this magical scenario also depends on the fact that people in general are going to be demanding technical devices at the same rate that they have been. Considering the lack of innovation, I just don’t see it.

Hamilton should focus on making itself a more liveable, sustainable city and supporting a diversity of employment sectors.

Permalink | Context

By Joshua (registered) | Posted February 13, 2014 at 00:51:35 in reply to Comment 97519

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking the same way as you.

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted February 11, 2014 at 17:18:04 in reply to Comment 97519

I agree that supporting and growing a diverse economy is very important and we can't put too many eggs in too few baskets. We can't ignore other sectors that produce goods and services - various forms of manufacturing, agriculture, transportation & warehousing, finance, business services, etc... nor should we ignore public sector industries where Hamilton already has a large portion of its employment.

But I have to ask how broadly you're defining "technology"? There are certain industries that have experienced bubbles (either globally, or regionally) or may be over-valued and due for a correction. But in the broader sense, technology and innovation are part of so many other sectors - not just communications and IT, but advanced manufacturing, materials, healthcare and medicine, environmental industries, food, and the list goes on. I think plenty of innovation continues across a whole spectrum of economic activities.

I didn't get the sense that the author/speaker was advocating for better leadership in a narrowly-defined range of tech industries. He chose to talk about specific examples, but that's all they were, at least based on how I read the speech.

Permalink | Context

By Joshua (registered) | Posted February 13, 2014 at 00:57:35 in reply to Comment 97556

I think the tension's found between innovation considered as the refinement of an existing product and the creation of a new product. Refinement and creation from nothing are utterly different. What I read in your comment is the process of refinement. That process, however, is, again, different from creation of a new and, ostensibly, useful thing, whatever it might be. There are very few useful things in the world, though it depends on how broadly or narrowly you define the adjective, but there are many things that exist now that supplant earlier forms of technology and the worlds that were inhabited by those early technical forms.

Permalink | Context

By KevinBrowne (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2014 at 15:49:42 in reply to Comment 97519

I think "tech vs. other sectors" is the wrong way of looking at it:

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2014 at 21:49:37

In the wake of BlackBerry Ltd.’s recent travails, which seem to threaten a replay of the end of Nortel Networks Corp., it's easy to overlook the fact that Canada still has a few cards to play.

Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., have been home to some of Canada’s brightest stars, but little-recognized York Region may be taking a run at restoring some of the tech limelight to the country’s $155-billion industry.

This region of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) recorded the most accelerated revenue growth among Canada’s seven tech hubs, at 23 per cent in 2012, vaulting it past Ottawa to No. 4, behind Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Data was compiled by Ottawa-based Branham Group, authors of the Branham annual ranking of the country’s top 250 information and communications technology (ICT) firms.

Statistics Canada data indicate ICT employs 9.2 per cent of York residents, leading all GTA regions. Observers chalk its success up to a number of factors.

• Proximity to Toronto but with slightly lower taxes and more space.
• Big anchor tenants such as IBM and CGI that serve to attract small businesses as suppliers and partners.
• A high concentration of the talent these businesses need.
• Relatively strong links to the growing east Asia market.
• Increasingly active engagement between business, government and educational institutions.

York Region may finally be getting its due after toiling for years in the shadow of Toronto. But there’s a clear distinction between the two: Where Toronto is a hotbed of edgy startups in make it or break it mode, the average age of the York companies on Branham’s top 250 list is 21 years.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools