Lowell's

Tracy Briggs (Re)Joins Lowell's

The Lowell's family is growing!

We are thrilled to announce the return of a familiar face to Lowell's.

Tracy Briggs, a long-time technician for Lowell's and for Lexus of Lexington, returned to Lowell's just yesterday!

We think Tracy will make a terrific addition to our already-terrific crew, and will help Lowell's be even better and faster!

Please join us in welcoming Tracy back to Lowell's!

What we did on winter break

While we were closed for the last week of 2011, we began to redecorate our lobby for 2012. 

We unintentionally chose a color-shifting paint: it was supposed to be a neutral beige color, but in different lights, it can look gold, greenish, or peach.

In any case, the result - we hope - is a lighter, brighter, and more pleasant place to visit and to wait in. 

In coming months, we'll continue to update the decor at Lowell's.

Please drop in and let us know what you think! (Or make an appointment online!)

 

When your car still isn't right

Hi everyone!  Keith here and today's topic is a difficult - but important - one.  

What do you do when there is a problem with your car soon after you pick it up from Lowell's? Do you bring it back or do you take it somewhere else?   

While you may be tempted to take your vehicle elsewhere, we hope that you will bring it back to us so we may address your concern.  If we ever let you down, we ask for the chance to make things right.  

I can honestly say everyone here is dedicated to doing the job right the first time. Sometimes, though, we might miss something or may not communicate something that you need to know.  

As such, we'd like to correct any discrepancy there may be.  We try to resolve any issues with customers -- however large or small.   

If you bring your vehicle back to Lowell's, I can promise we will do our best to make it right.  If we made mistakes during your service, we can usually resolve the problem at no extra cost to you.  If for some reason you still are not satisfied, please contact Rob personally.  

We appreciate the trust you place in Lowell's, and will always work hard to keep it.

Introducing the Lowell's Courtesy iPad

We're always looking for ways to make your Lowell's experience better.

You might have gotten a ride to work in our courtesy shuttle van.  If we needed to keep your car for a while, you might have driven one of our courtesy loaner vehicles.  Some of you have even ridden our courtesy bikes around downtown!

Now, the next time you are waiting in our lobby, try out our new courtesy iPad 2!

Use our iPad to cruise the internet, to catch up on news, or even to play a few rounds of Angry Birds while we fix your car!

 

Lowell's Black Friday Specials

If you'd rather not fight the crowds in search of a good deal on Black Friday, why not get great deals at Lowell's this year instead?

This Friday, November 25th, we're offering the best prices all year on some of your most important services!

Here's what we're offering:

• FREE brake inspection! (A $43 savings).
• A $5 oil change! (A savings of $15 to $25).
• Save 50% on a transmission flush! (A savings of $83).
• 50% off of a brake flush! (A savings of $69).

That's a potential savings of over $200 on the award-winning service you expect from Lowell's!

Be sure to reserve your slot for this Friday by calling Lowell's at 233-1173 or by making your appointment online today.  We can't wait to see you!

UPDATE: Because so many customers are traveling this weekend, we're extending our Black Friday deals to "Cyber Monday" - Monday, November 28th - as well. 

Share the Knowlege

Hello everyone!  My name is Keith Shelburne. I have been working for Lowells for just over 6 years now, and have been asked by Rob to be a  contributor to the blog. 

I have been turning wrenches (as they say) for over 26 years and am an ASE Master Certified Technician.  

My objective will be to share my knowlege with everyone on the blog.  Things from the write up to service to what we do when we technicians get your car, as well as any specifics on the cars.

I will try to be as informative as possible without being too technical.  I would like to hear any questions about appointments, personnel, write-ups, training,  service work or technical topics.  

Do you have a topic already? Just let me know what you would like to see covered.  Check back soon to see what the first topic may be.

Thanks,  Keith S

Fighting Breast Cancer

Shevawn is our friend, our customer, and a great single mom to a great son.  She is also an active and vocal contributor to our community.  She is smart, beautiful, and tough.

And Shevawn is fighting breast cancer.  

She has been sharing her brave, raw, and moving story at Forever Changed ever since her initial diagnosis in June.  Over the past four months, she has chronicled the awfulness and initial shocks of that diagnosis, her subsequent biopsy, her recently-completed chemotherapy, and her traumatic hair loss.  She is due to begin radiation treatments later this month.

Forever Changed is Shevawn's very personal account of her cancer experience.  It is also inspiring.  We encourage you to go read her story and to share your support with her.

Shevawn will turn 38 on October 15th - the same day as the Susan G. Komen "Race for the Cure" in Lexington.

We're celebrating with Shevawn by supporting her "Shine On" race team to help find a cure for this awful disease.  Please join us in supporting the search for a cure.  If you're interested, you can start with the links below:

Forever Changed

Shevawn's Race for the Cure Page - Shine On

Susan G. Komen Foundation, Lexington

Introducing CivilMechanics

Since its inception three years ago, the Lowell's blog (blog.lowells.us) has been a strange beast.  

It has been an admixture of news about Lowell's, tips for car maintenance, thoughts about business and the economy, and assorted commentary on our community, on downtown, and on the city of Lexington.

While this assortment was in line with our stated intent to offer "our perspectives on cars, business, Lexington, and life," it also resulted in a divided audience: those who care about cars and what is happening at Lowell's (usually customers); and those who care about more civic matters.

As you might imagine, the practical overlap between these groups is quite small.  The car folks probably don't care about musings on CentrePointe or Lexington's streets and roads.  The civic folks probably don't care about what's happening with the Lowell's website or how a brake flush works.

Still, I could kind of rationalize the Lowell's blog as a local blog by, for, and about a local business and local issues.

::

I have been the sole contributor to the Lowell's blog.  And over the past year or so, my postings have been far less frequent than I'd like.  

Part of that has to do with the busy-ness of our business (I haven't had as much time to devote to writing), but most of it lies in the fact that I've been wanting to write about new and different things.

In particular, I've wanted to shift my focus from predominantly local issues to predominantly national and global ones - to try, for instance, to decode what's happening in Washington or Wall Street from my own distinct perspective.  These topics just didn't feel at home among car care tips and shop news.

At the same time, I've wanted to extend the content of the Lowell's blog to include new contributions and new kinds of content from my employees here at Lowell's.  As I contemplated such a move, I didn't want them to feel overshadowed by strongly-expressed views which they might not share.

To resolve this dilemma, I've created a new blog called CivilMechanics (www.civilmechanics.com) - sponsored by Lowell's - in which I will express my unique perspectives on a variety of issues.  (And, yes, "CivilMechanics" is an intentional multiple-entendre. I like that kind of stuff.) Please check out our first post, "Confessions of a Job Creator".  

I've also taken the liberty of migrating a few old Lowell's posts to CivilMechanics which capture some of the spirit of this new blog.   

Over the coming weeks, we'll introduce new contributors to the Lowell's blog.  I'll also continue to post on the Lowell's blog from time to time with items of interest to Lowell's customers and Lexingtonians.

With these changes, I'm hoping to increase our overall frequency of posts, both for customers (through the Lowell's blog) and for civic-minded followers (through CivilMechanics).  Please check them out, and be sure to let us know how we're doing.

The Lowell's Blog: blog.lowells.us

CivilMechanics: www.civilmechanics.com

Lowell's wins 2011 Best of Lex Award

Thanks to your generous votes, Lowell's has been chosen "Best Fear-Free Mechanic" in Ace Weekly's Best of Lex 2011.

This is the ninth time Ace readers have voted us Lexington's best mechanic, and we are deeply grateful that you have honored us once again.

And be sure to check out all of this year's Best of Lex winners.

 

Easier Appointments

We're pleased to release a long-needed upgrade to our online system for making service appointments or checking your service history.

If you used the application over the past couple of years, you were taken to an older section of our site which looked very different from our main site: different logo, different background, different navigation.  

In fact, it looked so different that it confused some customers.  Were they even on the same site?

We've tried to update the look and feel of the application to make it clearer and easier to use.

Try it out and let us know how you like it.  And, as always, please let us know what we can do better.

"Do You Always Use Genuine Toyota Parts?"

Customers often ask us, "Do you always use genuine Toyota parts?"

No, not always.

Throughout our history, we've consistently used a mixture of genuine Toyota parts and high-quality aftermarket (in other words, "non-Toyota") parts.  

We choose parts based on part quality, availability, and price.  If a Toyota part costs too much or takes too long to get in, and we can offer a high-quality alternative, we will.

On critical categories of parts - such as brake pads, oil filters, antifreeze, and ignition coils - we use only Toyota materials because we think Toyota offers superior quality.

When we do use aftermarket parts, we try to ensure that they are equivalent in quality to Toyota parts - usually by choosing a supplier who also supplies Toyota (such as NGK or Denso). 

We know that our parts quality is key to our customers' satisfaction - and to the future of Lowell's. Without great parts, we wouldn't be able to stand behind our exceptional three-year / 36,000-mile warranty on most repairs (where other shops and dealers usually offer 1-year or 90-day warranties).

If you ever have questions about your parts, please feel free to ask.  We're always happy to explain how we work on your car.

Lowell's wins 2011 Readers' Choice Award

For the fifth time, Lexington Herald-Leader readers have voted Lowell's their "Favorite Auto Repair Place" in the 2011 Readers' Choice Awards.  

We are humbled and honored to have the support of our wonderful, wonderful customers. We are also very grateful to have such thoughtful and skilled employees.

Lowell's won the category even when matched up against other great finalists who have multiple locations (S&S Tire) or who service multiple vehicle brands (our friends at Auto Tech).

Lowell's was also the top pick for Herald-Leader readers in 2010, 2009, 2007, and 1994 - to our knowledge, that's every time the auto repair category has been offered.

Thank you so much,
Rob, Suzanne, and your Friends at Lowell's

And now for the hard part...

Critics have identified three interrelated categories of problems for CentrePointe since it was introduced to the public in 2008:

1. Context.  Will it 'fit' with downtown Lexington?
2. Financing.  Will it be built?
3. Viability.  If built, will it work?

And CentrePointe has consistently failed across all three dimensions.  It didn't fit Lexington.  It couldn't be financed.  And it wasn't viable.

As the project has changed trajectory in the past few months, it is worth re-examining these critiques.

Context
The first three iterations of CentrePointe were uninspired and uninspiring.  The designs seemed devoid of place - as though they could be plopped down on any block in any random city - Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Detroit.  There was nothing about the designs which was particular to Lexington.

The bland and imposing structures were also the architectural equivalents of bullies - crowding Main Street, unwelcoming to pedestrians, overshadowing nearby buildings, and oblivious to the surrounding fabric of downtown.  

The heavy-handed designs seemed to mirror the developers' if-you-don't-like-it-well-that's-just-too-damn-bad demeanor.

In recent weeks, however, we have begun to see much more hope for CentrePointe.  With help from the mayor, the developers engaged Chicago's Studio Gang Architects (SGA) to reconceive the site. And the developers have interacted much more with the public and the press - including a quasi-interview with the developer which utilized our questions from an earlier post. (We'd like to ask some follow-ups!)

Jeanne Gang presented her firm's initial architectural concept for the CentrePointe block to a packed crowd at the Kentucky Theatre last week.

It was a great design.

And like most great designs, it poses elegant solutions to several problems at once.  Here are a few highlights which caught our attention:

• Mass.  SGA departed from previous monolithic designs, and redistributed the mass of the project across the site.  The new asymmetric distribution allows the design to accomplish a number of goals.  Breaking the project into components also opens the possibility that the site might be developed in phases - perhaps as financing becomes available.
• Main Street.  Along Main Street, SGA proposes having 6 distinct building designs which would mirror the varied designs across the street and which would also help maintain the organic, eclectic feeling of a typical Main Street.
• Inclusiveness.  To help ensure distinct building designs along Main Street, SGA has selected five local architects to design 5 of the 6 buildings on that side of CentrePointe.
• Plays Nice.  Unlike the earlier "bully" designs, this one seems to play nicely with the surrounding city. SGA used "shadow studies" to assess how the 30-story tower might throw shadows over nearby buildings.  Those studies helped them decide to place the tower near the corner of Upper and Vine Streets, where the building would be less overpowering on the surrounding blocks.  
• Circulation.  This design also departs from earlier versions in that it promotes pedestrian circulation with the surrounding city and within the site, with ample open spaces and public areas.  It is able to accommodate parking access for cars without significantly disrupting pedestrian access.
• Lexington.  Studio Gang are trying to give the project local meaning - connecting it to our history, stories, and environment.   And while I'm skeptical of the real utility of "the connected separateness of paddocks" or "the porosity of limestone" as sources of inspiration for the new design, SGA is the first CentrePointe architect who seems to realize that it will be built in a unique setting within our unique city.  

Studio Gang have crafted this particular design to this particular spot in Lexington, and the result is very encouraging.  Lexington may finally have a signature project worthy of the center of our city.

Financing
The changes in the nature of the CentrePointe project don't alter the economic environment for getting the project funded.  

While now armed with a world-class architect and a world-class design, the developers are still faced with the enormous challenge of finding funding while the commercial real estate market remains in severe recession.  

Investors will be far less interested in the aesthetics of the project than its financial viability as an investment vehicle...

Viability
Our central criticism of CentrePointe over the past few years has been its economic viability.  We've spent a lot of time deconstructing the economics of CentrePointe, and whether it can 'work' as an economic entity.

In short, the project wasn't - and still isn't - realistic.

Each of the four components of the project (condominiums, hotel, retail, and office) demanded exceptionally high prices and required exceptionally high occupancy to be successful.

Despite the inclusion of SGA in the design of CentrePointe, the developers won't be able to achieve the levels of occupancy needed to make the project successful.  (Both prices and occupancy were far in excess of the Lexington market.)

The project also needed the infusion of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) from the state and city to help pay for 'public' improvements to the site (including sidewalks, parking garage, storm sewers, and other infrastructure).  

The city and state would issue TIF bonds (debt) to pay for today's improvements, and would pay them back with interest by harvesting future tax revenues coming out of the CentrePointe site.

And, as we have shown before, the CentrePointe TIF - based on incredibly optimistic assumptions - never pays back the city or state for their investment.  In essence, TIF amounts to corporate welfare for the developers.

And no knowledgeable bond analyst would ever recommend the CentrePointe TIF to his or her investors.  It would never pay them back.

::

Over the past three years, CentrePointe seemed like a lose-lose for Lexington: We lost if the project wasn't built; we lost if it was built, too.

CentrePointe was a bad idea.  And it was badly executed.

The new approach to designing CentrePointe is different: This new design incorporates so many great ideas, and it seems to function so well with downtown Lexington.  

Studio Gang has helped transform the threefold criticism of CentrePointe - It doesn't fit Lexington; It can't be financed; It isn't viable - into a twofold critique.  CentrePointe still can't be financed.  It still isn't viable.  

While still deeply skeptical about the project's economic viability (and its value for Lexington), we find ourselves pulling for this vision of the project - just a little.  

This CentrePointe seems like a good idea - maybe even a great one.  And that's the first time we can legitimately say that about CentrePointe.  

But great ideas are the easy part.  

Now, the community's attention must turn to the hard part of CentrePointe: Execution.

The transition to execution poses new challenges for the developers and for Studio Gang.  

How will the project find funding?  Can they conceive a more realistic plan which pulls back from today's more ambitious design?  Can they make a 20-story tower work, for instance?  Can they craft an economic model which doesn't rely so heavily on TIF?  Can they build smaller parts of the project today, and finance the rest when the economy improves?

The future of downtown might rest on the answers.

UPDATE 7/18/2011: Jeff Fugate has an excellent post on what the new design of CentrePointe accomplishes over at ProgressLex.

The Promise (and Predicament) of CentrePointe

Since CentrePointe was initially proposed over three years ago, the project has been marked by fantastical bluster, broken promises, poor designs, and, ultimately, a failure to build.  All of which was compounded by the developers' riteously indignant, arrogant, and combative attitude when challenged on the wisdom of CentrePointe.

A couple of years ago, after declaring CentrePointe an impossible-to-build failure, we outlined some basic principles for reconceiving the (still) empty block in the heart of our city.  Here's an abbreviated excerpt from that post:

• Create a vibrant destination which attracts residents, workers, and tourists.
• Make that destination a distinctive place which no other city has.
• Create public and private spaces within the destination.
• Balance the types of uses within the development.
• Ensure local businesses have significant presence.
• Ensure that the space is well-integrated with the surrounding community.
• Build it soon.

After three years of apparent tone-deafness by CentrePointe's developers, the prospects for such a "signature place" seemed quite dim.

::

On the sweltering third floor of the old courthouse yesterday, an overflow crowd of some 300 Lexingtonians received a tantalizing glimpse of a new approach to the CentrePointe project.

And that approach represented an enormous (and refreshing) step in the right direction.

With the encouragement of Lexington's new mayor, the developers engaged Jeanne Gang of Chicago's Studio Gang Architects (SGA) to rethink the CentrePointe block.

On Thursday, she present preliminary site design concepts for the CentrePointe block.  And she presented a marked departure from the old approach to CentrePointe.

Gang's presentation and the developers' new approach are refreshing in a number of ways:

• Design. SGA abandons the "Fortress Lexington" approach of the old CentrePointe.  By breaking the project into independent components with different volumes and designs, SGA will avoid the imposing and monolithic designs offered in previous iterations of CentrePointe.
• Openness. By showing preliminary design concepts and inviting public input on them, CentrePointe promises to be a much more open project.  The developers are even inviting local architects to design the Main Street components of the project.
• Humility. Gang showed her work and her thinking while it was still in progress, while it was still incomplete.  Exposing this level of uncertainty takes a striking degree of humility and confidence - for both the architect and the developer.  Whereas previous iterations of CentrePointe were presented as a fait accompli to be adored by a passive audience, SGA's version promises to be a shared community treasure which we might be able to design together.  In this more humble regime, once-adversarial relationships might transform into more-cooperative ones.

The mayor and the developers and SGA are to be commended for crafting this new approach to CentrePointe.  

The chances for creating a unique, signature place for Lexington went way up yesterday. And the developers deserve some credit for allowing that to happen.

::

Despite the new approach to designing CentrePointe, a number of nagging issues remain for the tortuous project.

While Gang's site design breaks up the monolithic tower of previous CentrePointe concepts, it appears to maintain the overall square footage and volume of the last iteration of the project.  If the project is roughly the same size, it should be roughly the same cost - around $200 million.

And if the developers have had difficulty lining up financing for the past three years, what will allow them to line it up now?  The commercial real estate market remains deeply depressed, and it isn't clear that such abundant premium space would find tenants in Lexington.  The business model issues we identified early in the project haven't fundamentally changed.

Is it possible that the new design will be so revolutionary, so inspirational, so great that investors and tenants will line up around the CentrePointe block to get in?  Perhaps.  We'd be thrilled.  But we doubt it.

The $200 million price tag is also important because that is the minimum required to qualify for tax increment financing (TIF).  TIF allows cities and states to allocate future incremental tax revenues to finance today's public improvements related to new economic development initiatives.  

In CentrePointe's case, the city and state would finance about $50 million in improvements - a parking garage, sidewalks, storm sewers, etc. - around the project, and they would hope to recoup that investment from new taxes generated by CentrePointe.  In previous analysis, we've found that the CentrePointe TIF is highly problematic, and that it is doubtful that the city or state would ever get their money back.

Even though the new design direction is encouraging, several other aspects of the project are still unresolved.  Is the project the appropriate scale for Lexington?  Can it find willing tenants? Can the developers nail down financing?  Is the TIF worth the up-front expense?

The developers find themselves in a dilemma: If their project falls below the $200 million mark, it will be much more realistic to finance and to find occupants.  But it will lose the $50 million boost from TIF financing.  

If the project comes in over $200 million, it is much more difficult to finance and occupy, and the opportunity for financing the project in the next 5 to 6 years looks grim.  (The TIF agreement between the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the city specifies that the $200 million be spent by January 2015).

::

We applaud the developers' new, more-open approach to designing CentrePointe.  Bringing Jeanne Gang and SGA in to rethink the site is a welcome departure from the past three years. As frequent critics of CentrePointe and its developers, we're very encouraged by the new direction of the project.

But because the economic challenges to the project linger on, we'd like to see a more open, more flexible approach applied to the execution of the project as well.  Perhaps the project could be built progressively or in stages, to allow for further construction as new financing becomes available. Perhaps it could be downsized to multiply financing options.  

If - and this is a big 'if' - the developers can rethink their business model the way they've begun to rethink the design, the future of CentrePointe may be bright indeed.

UPDATE 6/6/2011: Graham Pohl now has a fine post up on an architect's perspective of the new CentrePointe design and process over at ProgressLex.

Mitch Payton Joins Lowell's

Facing a very busy summer season, we knew we'd need additional help working on vehicles at Lowell's. And it was important for us to find an employee who'd help us build upon our award-winning culture.

So we had each potential technician interview with a group of Lowell's employees to ensure that they would enhance how we do things here.

After that process, we are pleased to (belatedly) welcome Mitch Payton to the Lowell's team.  Mitch joined us on April 1st.  

Mitch is an accomplished dart player - He played professionally for about 5 years!  He also has twelve years of combined experience at Green's Toyota in Lexington and Toyota South in Richmond.  

But we won't hold that against him.

All kidding aside, Mitch is a valuable addition to Lowell's.  In addition to providing us with even deeper Toyota experience and expertise, Mitch is thorough and conscientious - qualities we hold dear here at Lowell's.

We are very happy to add Mitch to our roster of stellar Lowell's employees.

The Trouble with Consultants

In the wake of the scandal surrounding Angelou Economics and their "recycled" economic development plan for Lexington, there have been a number of calls for developing a more homegrown economic development strategy.  

These include Tom Eblen's thoughts on local knowledge and leadership, John Cirigliano's project-based approach, and our own ideas about extending the work of the mayoral transition teams.

In response to these calls for a more local economic development approach, I've noticed counter-memes emerging.

• One argument contends that we need consultants to fight insularity and to provide a valuable outside perspective.  
• Another - in a particularly egregious defense of the indefensible - contends that this is what creative professionals do, and shame on those who called out Angelou - they destroyed a civic foundation of teamwork and trust.

I think these arguments are mostly wrong, and that they mostly distract us from taking the reins of our own economic development.

 ::

I'm pretty jaded when it comes to consultants.

I've managed a wide range of consultants throughout my career: industrial designers, research agencies, brand consultants, business strategy consultants, operations consultants, and even internet consultants at the height of the dot-com bubble.

I've engaged with enough consultants over the past 15 years to notice distinct patterns:

• Consultants play "follow the leader".  Every industrial design consultant starts by deconstructing what Apple does.  Business strategy consultants start with Google.  Or GE.  Or Proctor and Gamble.  They consistently take the leader in a category and dangle it in front of the client like red meat.  The implication: "With us, you can make products like Apple.  You can grow like Google.  You can mint money like P&G.  Just hire us and we'll share that 'secret sauce'."
• Consultants tell clients what they want to hear.  A few consultants throw some early jabs to get a client to sit up and listen - "Here's why your marketing sucks..."  Ultimately, though, they calibrate their recommendations to what they think the client wants to hear.  What they deliver are bland, unobjectionable, safe ideas which don't really threaten the status quo.  "You can be wildly successful without discomfort!"
• Consultants position for the next engagement.  The most successful consultants are always angling for their next big score.  They deliver big, fat, visually-stunning reports loaded with aspirational recommendations which seem reasonable enough, but which neglect any significant detail on how to execute what they recommended.  Because execution is something they would be glad to help you with, for an additional fee.  They promise the 'secret sauce', but never actually provide the recipe.
• Consultants recycle.  Relentlessly.   Once a consultant comes up with a 'big idea', they don't usually isolate it to a single client.  They leverage that idea over and over again, across their business.  They might customize or repackage their big idea for each client, or they might just make it a signature 'product' which they patent or trademark.  About eighteen months after we rejected an industrial design, for example, we'd see elements of that design pop up in another client's products.  Many of the presentations and reports we got from consultants were 70% to 90% 'boilerplate' - stuff which could have been used for any of their clients in any industry.

Not every consultant follows these patterns, but enough do that these behaviors are fairly predictable.  If consultants are so predictable, why do so many people work with them?  There are a couple of unfortunate reasons.

First, consultants can provide a kind of political cover for difficult decisions: "I'm not recommending layoffs, the consultant is..."  Their 'independence' and 'objectivity' make the consultants' recommendations seem to carry more weight than when those same recommendations come from the people who hired them.

Second, and often related, is that consultants help us look busy when we're tackling a difficult problem.  They signal to others that we're taking action: "Our consultant is looking into that."  In these cases, the appearance of action seems more important than the production of results.

Consultants can, indeed, provide a valuable outside perspective.  Often, they've seen a lot of diverse examples of smart stuff that others are doing, and they bring those best practices to their clients.

But consulting engagements perform best when consultants augment and enrich the client's work - when the clients have already done their homework; They fail when the client abdicates their work to the consultant. 

::

Given my jaded perspective on consultants, I wasn't too surprised when Ben Self exposed the Madlibs-style, fill-in-the-blank consulting work done by Angelou Economics in their "Advance Lexington" strategy for economic development. 

Angelou fit a lot of the consultant patterns.  

• They recycled reports they had created for other cities.  
• They played "follow the leader", holding out their work in successful cities like Austin and Boulder with the implicit promise that Lexington could be like them.  
• They also told their clients what they wanted to hear - recommending a much more prominent role for report sponsor Commerce Lexington (which is partly subsidized by Lexington taxpayers) in Lexington's economic development.  That gives Commerce Lexington "cover" when it requests increased public funding; After all, it isn't Commerce Lexington's idea...

The problem for Lexington is that we attempted to have the consultant do our work for us without doing our own homework first. We can't expect to get great economic results when we outsource our economic development strategy to others.

We had folks whose job it was to produce such a strategy.  They just didn't.  They abdicated their responsibility to a consultant.  And that's not acceptable.

The important question: Why didn't Lexington already have a strategy for economic development before we engaged Angelou?

Beyond Angelou

In December, I was honored when Lexington Mayor-elect Jim Gray asked me to join one of his economic development transition teams.  In preparation for our first meeting, we were given a packet which described the state of economic development in Lexington.  

As I reviewed those materials, I noticed several references to "the" strategic plan for Lexington's economic development; Yet that strategic plan wasn't part of our materials.  I scanned the city government website for the strategic plan, and came up empty.  

At our first meeting, I mentioned that we needed to get our hands on that strategic plan.

But Lexington didn't actually have a strategic plan for economic development.  Despite having a Mayor's Office of Economic Development and a staff of economic development folks at Commerce Lexington, we hadn't developed a comprehensive approach to Lexington's development.

Instead, the city and Commerce Lexington co-sponsored a $150,000 engagement with Angelou Economics, an Austin-based economic development consultancy.  The final Angelou deliverable would include an economic development strategy for Lexington.  

I was stunned.  Not only did we not have a coherent economic development strategy, but we had seemingly outsourced the formulation of that strategy to an out-of-town consultant!

::

Angelou released a draft of Lexington's economic development strategy last week.  In the process, they unleashed a torrent of criticism after Ben Self showed that Angelou essentially recycled reports they had provided to other cities, often copying entire paragraphs and even pages.

The recommendations that Angelou makes aren't bad.  They recommend creating a better support network for entrepreneurs.  They recommend setting up a minority business accelerator.  They recommend setting up a comprehensive marketing plan for Lexington to help recruit new businesses.

The trouble with Angelou's report (as might be expected after Ben's analysis) is that "Lexington" is missing.  Much of what makes Lexington special and unique - our history, our geography, and our culture - is largely absent from the Angelou strategy.  

There's no significant mention of downtown.  Of the Distillery District.  Of our neighborhoods.  Of our unique individuals and personalities.  Of our history.  There's only a passing mention of our horse farms and our rural landscape.  There's no mention of the World Equestrian Games.

As a result, Angelou fails to identify what gives Lexington a competitive advantage in the global competition for businesses, jobs, and talent.  So while the recommendations aren't bad, they just ring hollow.  They are bland and generic.  They don't feel special to Lexington.  

When Angelou recommends focusing on "Clean Technology", for instance, that sounds like a good idea.  But what gives Lexington any special advantage over any other city in pursuing clean tech (Especially when every other city is pursing such a "hot" industry)?

These kinds of questions arise with most of the Angelou recommendations. What would a marketing plan for Lexington look like?  What would it build upon?  What - specifically - would give Lexington the ability to create a best-in-class workforce?

::

We have the beginnings of a very solid economic development plan.  It just didn't come from Angelou.  It came out of the two economic development transition teams that Mayor Gray appointed.  (You can download PDFs of the two "Economic Opportunity" reports from the mayor's transition website.)

The two teams - made up of leaders from across the city - developed recommendations for how the mayor should approach economic development in Lexington.  

And the transition teams recommended many of the same actions that Angelou did.  The difference?  The ideas contained in these reports are far more actionable than the ones we received from Angelou.  They are far more interesting.  They are far more relevant.  They are far more tailored to Lexington's specific challenges and opportunities.

Like Angelou, the transition teams recommended enhancing support for entrepreneurs.  But the transition teams went further, and offered much more specific examples.  These included: Having the mayor visit 5 entrepreneurial events each year (along with a list of suggested events); Having the mayor organize an annual innovation conference, along with specific suggestions on structure and format; and, having the mayor's office produce "The Lexington Entrepreneur's Guide" online and in print.  

The transition teams' suggestions for a marketing plan for Lexington included specific, actionable ideas on who to include and how to approach marketing our city.  We could get testimonials from Jess Jackson (of Kendall Jackson Wineries) or Elizabeth Arden (Note the Streetsweeper's comment below), who happen to own horse farms here.  The transition reports recommended building databases of local resources which could be called upon when recruiting new businesses to Lexington.  

The transition teams also offered suggestions on how to better utilize downtown, our horse farms, and the Distillery District.  They offered specific ideas on building upon our health and educational systems.

And unlike Angelou, the recommendations contained in the transition team reports are much more tailored to Lexington, and - as a result - the recommendations are much more actionable.  They form the foundations of a real economic development plan for our city.  

::

Somehow, about 25 volunteers - in the span of a few meetings across a few weeks - leveraged their knowledge and experience to produce some innovative ways for Lexington to pursue economic development.  And the final product is more valuable than the report the consultant provided.  And it didn't cost $150,000.

There are a lot of great ideas in these transition team reports.  That said, those ideas don't yet form a cohesive economic development plan.  That work remains to be done.  

Given how productive the transition teams were in such a short time, why not let leaders from throughout the community develop the strategy for Lexington's economic development?  Why not let them recommend the structure, the direction, and the financing of Lexington's economic development efforts?  

All it took to create these transition reports was leadership from our mayor.  Likewise, our mayor should initiate the process of building an economic development strategy for Lexington, created by us.

We should use the Angelou fiasco not only to penalize Angelou for doing poor consulting work, but also to learn how to do our own economic development better.

Toyota Tip: "What's a cabin air filter?"

We recommend changing your car's cabin air filter about once a year.  Many customers know about their car's engine air filter, but they aren't as familiar with the filter for their cabin.  

So when we recommend changing the cabin air filter, we're often asked "What - exactly - is a cabin air filter?"

Good question.

Put simply, a cabin air filter helps purify the air inside your car's cabin.  The cabin air filter helps keep dust, pollen, and road particles from getting into your car's heating and air conditioning system, which then helps keep that stuff out of your lungs and out of your car's interior.

Clean, Dirty, and Filthy Cabin Air Filters

Changing your cabin air filter will ensure that your heating and air conditioning system has maximum air flow while keeping the nasty stuff out of your cabin.

The once-a-year guideline is a general one; We really recommend you change the cabin air filter when it gets dirty.  And that depends on your driving conditions.  

If you often drive on dusty roads or over leaf-covered streets in the fall, you may need your cabin filter changed more often.  If you drive in cleaner conditions, you can probably wait longer than a year between changes.

Feel free to call the shop with any questions, and - if it is time for a filter change or other service for your vehicle - to make an appointment for service.

 

Lowell's Joins Local First Lexington

Here at Lowell's, we have long supported buying goods and services from small, local businesses to spur Lexington's economic development. 

We believe that buying from local businesses keeps more of Lexington's money at home - helping to create jobs and greater opportunity here.  (See more of our rationale in our "Local First" post.) 

So - in a long-overdue step - we are pleased to announce that Lowell's has now joined Local First Lexington. 

So... what is Local First Lexington?

Local First Lexington is an alliance of nearly 200 independent, Lexington-owned businesses, aimed at celebrating and promoting buying locally-produced products.

If you're interested in buying more local goods and services, please visit LFL's directory of great local businesses.

On Compromise

Last night, Congress passed the $900 billion tax compromise reached between President Obama and Republican leaders.  

In the end, progressives and conservatives alike lambasted the deal.  And that might be a very good thing.

I'm no fan of the bonus tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama conceded to congressional Republicans; Despite Republican claims, those cuts fail to create significant job growth.

Lost in much of the analysis over what Obama conceded, however, is just how many bigger concessions he won back from Republican leaders, as Ezra Klein points out with this chart:

Unproductive and unneeded tax cuts for the wealthy make up only one-eighth of the compromise. The other seven-eighths of the deal are much more stimulative to our economy and to job production.  

In essence, this tax deal is a second "stimulus" which is much-needed at this stage of our fragile economic recovery.

::

During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, representatives of each state teetered on the knife's edge between walking away from the proposed Constitution for what they might have to give up, and giving up important principles (and power) in order to gain something better, stronger, and more resilient.

While the present compromise is not nearly as momentous, it does remind me of what Benjamin Franklin - then 82 years old - said when addressing that convention in September, which galvanized the representatives into agreement:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. (...) I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

::

Progressives hate what was conceded in this deal.  So do conservatives.  And everyone should be concerned over how much this deal grows our national debt.

Both sides wanted their leaders to stick to core principles - no matter the cost.  But that's demogoguery, not democracy.  It isn't how our country works.  It isn't how our country was formed.

"Compromise" has become a foul word in this political season.  

But it is the very heart of a functioning democracy.