News   Dec 20, 2024
 658     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 574     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 812     0 

Toronto as a Global City? What's holding us back?

The only reason someone says, "I'm headed for NYC" when they're actually going to Jersey City is that they don't want the shame of telling people their business partners are an investment firm that can't afford Manhattan.

From a tourism point of view, a visit to Toronto is a trip to the City of Toronto -- a trip to Algonquin Park would be a trip to Canada, probably, for your average German tourist. Toronto would be irrelevant. But a trip to Wonderland? That's one suburbanite going to another suburb -- no one flies into Toronto to go to Wonderland -- they drive from Newmarket.

So, YES, I go to SF, NOT San Jose, and ride the trolley. I go to NYC, NOT Long Island, and go to the Frick. And when I go to Toronto, I go to the ROM, AGO, Luminato, the Islands, the Rogers Centre, the ACC, the CN Tower.

And, yeah, the City of Toronto is not the GTA. Thanks be to a benevolent God.

Glad to hear that people have such clear intentions when they visit cities....seems I am a bit scatterbrained then....on my trip to SF this summer I actually ventured down to Mountainview for a concert.....dam. We even ventured up to Sausalito for some Sunday brunch....I guess we officially started a new trip at that point?

So no families visit Toronto, expose their kids to wonders of the ROM and then reward them with a trip to Wonderland? No families visit LA and allow their kids to also enjoy the fun that awaits in Orange County?

I am obviously way too loose/leniant/fun-loving for my kid's own good!!!
 
Toronto's main touristy 'site' is Niagara Falls, obviously, in the same way that Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon form another obvious branding partnership. The Falls may feel like a 'world' away for GTAers but this is simply not the viewpoint of any tourist to the area who if in Toronto will more than likely take a detour to the falls if they haven't seen them before.

As for 'Golden Gate'-type tourism these things aren't so much draws themselves per se as icons of city image/identity that are easily diffused and easily recognized. How many people who go to San Fran actually travel out to the bridge? Most of us will simply see it in the background and go 'ahhhh, look it's the Golden Gate Bridge" and maybe take a picture but that's about it. The CN Tower in Toronto is probably more in line with this, although a visit to see the view has probably a little more to offer.
 
Toronto's main touristy 'site' is Niagara Falls, obviously, in the same way that Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon form another obvious branding partnership. The Falls may feel like a 'world' away for GTAers but this is simply not the viewpoint of any tourist to the area who if in Toronto will more than likely take a detour to the falls if they haven't seen them before.

As for 'Golden Gate'-type tourism these things aren't so much draws themselves per se as icons of city image/identity that are easily diffused and easily recognized. How many people who go to San Fran actually travel out to the bridge? Most of us will simply see it in the background and go 'ahhhh, look it's the Golden Gate Bridge" and maybe take a picture but that's about it. The CN Tower in Toronto is probably more in line with this, although a visit to see the view has probably a little more to offer.

I think a fair number of people who visit SF spend at least some of their time visiting the wine regions of Napa and Sonoma........tough to get there without using the GG bridge!
 
Here's where Toronto needs to improve in order to be considered a "Global City".

AESTHETICS!
- better maintenance of roads, sidewalks and pavements
- burying of utilities
- waterfront revitalization (coming along)
- more urban trees (Bloor St should be the standard)
- some more random bursts of urban art (sculptures etc)

OTHER
- more subways, including an airport connection
- one more landmark museum

All of these elements will have a profound effect on "tourist impression", which goes a long way in setting a city's global reputation.
 
Last edited:
I'm not clear on what metric is useful for defining a city as 'Global'.

I realize what's meant is something like on-par with or as well known as New York or London or Paris etc.

But there really is no clear of way of quantifying that.

Population? Well then Karachi is a global city!

Quality of Life? (well this is every bit as amorphous)

Economy? (well if most money per person is goal its Luxembourg or Lichtenstein here we come!)

:p

Its just not that easy to say if we only had 1 more subway line or 1 more concert hall or 1 big bank in the top 3 in the world etc. etc. then we will have 'made it'.

Any list is essentially arbitrary. We all value different things, even in this forum, a very particular subset of urban fetishist, Toronto geeks, LOL, we will can't agree on much of what we'd like to see, or much of what we find praise-worthy.

**********

Of course we all want Toronto to prosper, to increase opportunity, quality of life etc.

And I certainly think most of us feel Toronto, for all its flaws in some respects is on the whole a great place to live and probably under-appreciated at some level in the global context.

Sure it would be nice if that changed; but on the other hand...I don't want Tokyo's real estate prices, London's Crime, or New York's traffic; .....

I also don't really base my own self worth or that of my City on what others have to say. I'm not indifferent, of course, but I'm not buying a new suit with the name Armani on it just to get an appreciative nod; nor do I think we should go build some landmark museum or another subway just so someone living in New York will say something nice about us, or be bit more likely to visit.

*******

In the end, I think we build this City to succeed at what its good at. (General quality of life, broadly successful social pluralism etc.) as well an enhance our ability to make money by fostering growth in sectors where we're already strong (finance, mining finance/HQ, Biotech/pharma, etc.)

And we largely let things fall where they do as a result.

Though surely we do need to market the City a little better, both through key investments in urban design, and through outright good publicity.

But that's another thread.....
 
I think a fair number of people who visit SF spend at least some of their time visiting the wine regions of Napa and Sonoma........tough to get there without using the GG bridge!


ha! I suppose that's true. Still, if you're bound to staying within San Fran are you going to drive out to the bridge? I guess maybe some people would, but I'm happy to see it from afar. Then again, I also could care less to visit the Eiffel Tower in Paris and I've been to NYC twice and not yet seen the Statue of Liberty. I have nothing against those things and love seeing them pop into view unexpectedly but I'm just not one to view them as 'must-see' destinations on some obligatory tourist trail.
 
ha! I suppose that's true. Still, if you're bound to staying within San Fran are you going to drive out to the bridge? I guess maybe some people would, but I'm happy to see it from afar. Then again, I also could care less to visit the Eiffel Tower in Paris and I've been to NYC twice and not yet seen the Statue of Liberty. I have nothing against those things and love seeing them pop into view unexpectedly but I'm just not one to view them as 'must-see' destinations on some obligatory tourist trail.

I think you just point out that people are all different and look for different things when they travel. Every time I go to SF I enjoy the drive over the bridge but mostly because I know that Sausalito is on the other side and it is my favourite place to dine....looking back across the water @ the city.

This thread, though, is not about what you and/or I specifically would visit or what makes any city important to you and/or I it is about a more global perspective and the ability to have attractions/businesses/infrastructure that satsifies the needs/wants/desires of a broad spectrum of people/businesses.......it is for that reason that I disagree with the notion that the definition of Toronto, or any city for that matter, is limited to its core....the region(s) contribute....sure the core is very important...but it is a sorta "hip bone's connected to the thigh bone" thing to me.
 
To me, it's about the branding/visualizing

Glad to hear that people have such clear intentions when they visit cities....seems I am a bit scatterbrained then....on my trip to SF this summer I actually ventured down to Mountainview for a concert.....dam. We even ventured up to Sausalito for some Sunday brunch....I guess we officially started a new trip at that point?

So no families visit Toronto, expose their kids to wonders of the ROM and then reward them with a trip to Wonderland? No families visit LA and allow their kids to also enjoy the fun that awaits in Orange County?

I am obviously way too loose/leniant/fun-loving for my kid's own good!!!

My point was how do you think about Toronto or any other city from a stranger/visitor's point of view -- that's my definition of what you think about when you're defining a 'global city', whether it's as a tourist or on a business trip.

No one 'goes to San Francisco' to visit Mountain View. There's a concert you want to see in Mountain View? Great -- knock yourself out. I hope it was lots o' fun. But you probably didn't visit SF to go to Mountain View or that concert, it just happened to be on while you were there and you decided to go.

And the only reason you would drag kids out to Orange County would be to visit Disneyland. Otherwise, it's tract housing and shopping malls. And, when they came back to Toronto, they wouldn't say 'we visited LA', they would say 'we went to Disneyland.' Much like a trip to Orlando is probably not a trip to Orlando.

Niagara Falls and Algonquin Park are probably the two tourist sites outside the City of Toronto that would qualify for Disneyland/Napa Valley status. Otherwise, everything else you want to see is south of Bloor, pretty much.
 
Toronto can thrive in that environment. It already has the backbone of the mass tourism industry (CN Tower, AGO, ROM, etc) but we are a city of neighbourhoods and the fact is that you could spend a night every day of the week in a new neighbourhood and have a mindblowing experience that you share with your friends when you get home. Other cities are already doing this and we just need to start acknowledging that there are tons of niches and interests out there that people are willing to spend money on. Hell, when I was in Paris 3 years ago I ran into a tour group doing a week long tour of all of the sites in The Da Vinci Code. The possibilities really are endless.
Perhaps, but the possibilities are more endless in some cities than others. I completely agree that 1/2 of Toronto's (or the GGH's) tourism potential is totally untapped, and the other 1/2 is very poorly developed. Of course, we definitely need more things to help channel that development energy further.

First I think, would be adding at least one aquarium, if not two or three. I mean honestly, I can't believe how we can't come up with this. An aquarium would go wonderfully well with Ontario Place, and with more development at Ontario Place, it'd draw in a huge number of people and really act as a development anchor. Right now, Ontario Place is kind of in limbo, stuck between being a good cultural destination and being an amusement park. I think it'd be better to focus on making it a nice cultural centre instead of amusement park, in part due to it's location close to downtown.

Second is Humber Bay. I mean, this place could look almost exactly like Acapulco. It's getting development, but I think the entertainment aspects are quite untapped.

You're not from Niagara, are you? Because you're essentially proposing riverfront condos in what is now a green space that stretches for much of the river from lake to lake in an area of the country that might have been hit hardest by the recent recession. Who is going to afford your dream? And why would you ruin such an asset? They've already done enough paving near the falls. There's no need to stretch that for kilometres in each direction.
Well I'm not from Niagara, but I've been there many, many times.

I'm proposing riverfront condos in green space? Have you been to Niagara?! Unless you consider overgrown gardens green space, that entire area downriver from the falls is totally filled with houses, and for a good 4-5 kilometers until you hit golf course. Unfortunately, right after that golf course is the hydroelectric area and is pretty solidly undevelopable. But there's at least 4 km of land that could easily get at least a row of condos, if not two or even three.

Your "main shopping street coming from the core" is already there. It's called Lundy's Lane. And, they already have an amusement park called Marineland, which at one point was targeted by Wonderland's folks, but is currently dying a slow death.
Hah, when I meant "main shopping street coming from the core," I meant a place where people could actually shop. Lundy's Lane is pretty pathetic as a shopping street. Sure, Lundy's Lane could stay the main shopping street, but it'll need a major revamp.

Yes, Marineland certainly is dying a very slow and painful death. That's why it needs to be better. I've heard something about it getting some expansion, but right now it's no amusement park. It's a destination, but it just needs to be better. Perhaps it should be split in half, with part aquarium/zoo thing and part amusement park. Either way, it needs to be more of an amusement park. Not quite Wonderland in that sense, but getting closer to that idea.

Also, Niagara Falls' untapped potential is found in its ability to establish itself as a year round destination. The summer months are already packed with people (it's almost too packed actually). It's the Winter when no one wants to sit near a frigid waterfall where they are trying to create a more diverse product to attract people to the area. The casinos are one way of doing it, but things like the Great Wolf Lodge will help attract the families to the area for at least the weekends in the colder months. Niagara Falls has come a long way since the mid-90s. It's just now realizing that it can't sustain itself on a 4month tourist season. Sports tourism is starting to become a big thing in Niagara as well, and there might be some potential there too.
I realize that. Great Wolf Lodge really is a great place, and I wouldn't object to another hotel like Great Wolf Lodge. I dunno, maybe a hotel built around an indoor slice of the Pacific. But another thing along the lines of Great Wolf Loge would be totally great for the city's tourism.

Casinos and a better shopping area built around the Falls would be great as well. The city's definitely getting much better at realizing their tourism potential, but nothing is going to make it a direct competitor to Vegas in a decade. That said, there's a lot more the government could do to help the city along.

Your vision for transit is fine. Taking GO into Niagara Falls was a great first step for bringing tourists to the area. But, people from outside of Niagara don't understand that Niagara is really in it's own world. People who live in St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, etc, don't go to Hamilton. I grew up in St Catharines and Welland and out of everyone I ever met I cannot recall one person or their parents who commuted outside of Niagara to work. It just doesn't happen down there. If you live in Niagara, you work in Niagara and it's something that people from the GTA can't seem to wrap their heads around. In fact, I would argue more people have links to Buffalo than Hamilton and the rest of the GTA.
Yeah, Niagara is in it's own world. Does that actually sound healthy to you?
The city should be interacting much more with neighboring cities, especially St. Catherines and Hamilton. Both these cities have well established industries and businesses, and St. Catherines has a very convenient location in the middle of Niagara Region. So Niagara Falls can be a separate entity because of it's tourism, but also be a kind of bedroom community to St. Catherines and Hamilton. I'm sure that a lot of people would love to live in Niagara Falls in a condo on the river, and take the Go train into work in St. Catherines or Hamilton. So right now, Niagara Falls might not be connected to anywhere else in any way, but that doesn't mean it has to be like that forever, and certainly doesn't mean that it should be like that.
 
My point was how do you think about Toronto or any other city from a stranger/visitor's point of view -- that's my definition of what you think about when you're defining a 'global city', whether it's as a tourist or on a business trip.

No one 'goes to San Francisco' to visit Mountain View. There's a concert you want to see in Mountain View? Great -- knock yourself out. I hope it was lots o' fun. But you probably didn't visit SF to go to Mountain View or that concert, it just happened to be on while you were there and you decided to go.

And the only reason you would drag kids out to Orange County would be to visit Disneyland. Otherwise, it's tract housing and shopping malls. And, when they came back to Toronto, they wouldn't say 'we visited LA', they would say 'we went to Disneyland.' Much like a trip to Orlando is probably not a trip to Orlando.

Niagara Falls and Algonquin Park are probably the two tourist sites outside the City of Toronto that would qualify for Disneyland/Napa Valley status. Otherwise, everything else you want to see is south of Bloor, pretty much.

Mostly true (although this particular trip - not others - started from the "lets go to that show" and we built around it)......what started me responding to you, though, was this comment (which amongst the other comments you made gave me the impression - forgive me if it was mistaken - that your vision of cities was exclusive to their cores and that someone visiting a city could not, should not?, be attracted/tempted out of the core).

Toronto would be irrelevant. But a trip to Wonderland? That's one suburbanite going to another suburb -- no one flies into Toronto to go to Wonderland -- they drive from Newmarket.

Wonderland would be on a lot of families' agenda when visiting Toronto just as Disney would be on a lot of families' agenda when they visit LA/Hollywood.
 
Wonderland would be on a lot of families' agenda when visiting Toronto just as Disney would be on a lot of families' agenda when they visit LA/Hollywood.

Exactly. 3.2 million people visited Wonderland in 2006, which is more than 3 times the amount of people who visit the ROM. It'd be damn stupid to exclude anything that attractive from any Toronto tourism strategy.

Besides, it's not like it's all that far away. Wonderland is just as far from downtown as the Toronto Zoo is.
 
The only reason someone says, "I'm headed for NYC" when they're actually going to Jersey City is that they don't want the shame of telling people their business partners are an investment firm that can't afford Manhattan.

From a tourism point of view, a visit to Toronto is a trip to the City of Toronto -- a trip to Algonquin Park would be a trip to Canada, probably, for your average German tourist. Toronto would be irrelevant. But a trip to Wonderland? That's one suburbanite going to another suburb -- no one flies into Toronto to go to Wonderland -- they drive from Newmarket.

I sympathize -- that sand must not taste very good.

So tourists who come to Toronto only visit those tourist attractions that are within the correct municipality, is it? The difficult thing is figuring out just how this works.

Do they avoid crossing incorrect municipal boundaries because, through master planning, we have avoided locating visit-worthy things outside of said boundaries? Or is there an invisible forcefield that frustrates their attempts to, say, cross the mighty Steeles?

Neither sounds plausible -- I have entertained a number of tourists myself who dared escape the centre of Rink Rat's 1950s urban model and entered the periphery of the derided suburbs. That they wished to do so is without dispute. How they managed to do so and escape the mysterious forcefield will remain an enigma. And yet I have little doubt that this feat will be accomplished again and again and again.
 
.it is for that reason that I disagree with the notion that the definition of Toronto, or any city for that matter, is limited to its core....the region(s) contribute....sure the core is very important...but it is a sorta "hip bone's connected to the thigh bone" thing to me.

Yep, I totally agree. Then again, I can't understand anybody coming to Toronto and not going to Stratford, in season of course.

Part of the reason for the dismal perception of how Toronto rates for tourism - as typified by comments of the 'there's so much more to do in (fill in famous city of choice)' ilk - is more to do with brand recognition or identity or image and Toronto's relative lack of these things compared to (fill in famous city of choice). We have culture and theatre, we have hip and/or quaint nabes, we have good shopping and nightlife, we have museums etc., and probably a lot more of some of the above than many cities, but who really recognizes this? Who is sitting in their room in Toledo dreaming of visiting the new AGO or tripping along Queen Street? I've been to far more famous similar streets elsewhere and found them dullsville or over-rated but because Gershwin wrote about it fifty years ago or we've seen it so many times in movies we feel we should check it out, and the tourism departments of those places milk those things.

Toronto is still a relatively young and new big 'great' city to have established any of these things, and to make matters worse we seem pretty determined to endlessly deconstruct just what the city does mean in any real collective sense. Makes for difficult branding. I do sense that it has started to register out there that we are big and diverse and modern but this just doesn't seem to be the compelling 'it' factor to draw tourists, even if it doesn't hurt matters either. Lacking the big unique 'wow' tourist attraction or event it will probably take a little time, growth and maturity for Toronto to develop the sort of tourist draw of more established and known places like San Fran or Boston or NYC etc. In the meantime it doesn't mean those places are necessarily better on all accounts.
 
it is for that reason that I disagree with the notion that the definition of Toronto, or any city for that matter, is limited to its core....
No one is limiting the definition of Toronto to its core, i.e. downtown. My definition of Toronto is, well.... the City of Toronto, including all the area within its boundaries.

I've travelled the world for business, to much of Europe, China, Caribbean, etc. and I've often heard folks tell me that they have a relative that lives in Markham, Mississauga, and Brampton. These places have their own identity. That doesn't mean that when someone visits Toronto that they don't visit outside the city boundaries, but I think if you asked them after the fact, they'd say they visited Markham, Mississauga or Brampton, in addition to Toronto.

Anyway, this debate has nothing to do with deciding if Toronto (as opposed to the GTA) is a global city.
 
No one is limiting the definition of Toronto to its core, i.e. downtown. My definition of Toronto is, well.... the City of Toronto, including all the area within its boundaries.

I've travelled the world for business, to much of Europe, China, Caribbean, etc. and I've often heard folks tell me that they have a relative that lives in Markham, Mississauga, and Brampton. These places have their own identity. That doesn't mean that when someone visits Toronto that they don't visit outside the city boundaries, but I think if you asked them after the fact, they'd say they visited Markham, Mississauga or Brampton, in addition to Toronto.

Anyway, this debate has nothing to do with deciding if Toronto (as opposed to the GTA) is a global city.

That's nonsense. Municipalities are artificial political entities that have no real bearing on the geography of a city. So is it fair to say that Kitchener or Hamilton are bigger cities than Sydney, Australia because the City of Sydney consists of only ~177,000 people?
 

Back
Top