Toronto/Chicago comparisons

[TOareaFan]

No, I think the point is that the current airport is a poor use of valuable public assets. Beyond all of the obvious reasons why this is not compatible with other land uses in the general area (recreation, cultural, schools residential bird sanctuary), it is a very poor economical use of a valuable public asset. Not only does it not make money for the city, it actually costs the city...millions.

The TPA has no interest in what is good for Toronto....their interest in increasing business at the airport is that it might start making money for them, and possibly meet their mandate as a Federal Port Authority to be economically self-sufficient, which they aren't. Which is another good reason why the TPA should be dissolved.

Again, then, what is the better use that unlocks this "$2B" in value to the city?

Then you should petition the City to stop planting trees.

Or...perhaps you missed the point

That is not the conclusion that I would reach from my statement....I would suggest that if there is a foundation for showing that the trees produce/save $60 million and that is the basis for assigning a financial value on the trees....it would produce a much lower value than $7B.

That does not mean trees have no value (outside of economic value) but it does mean if you are going to use financial/numeric metrics on something like trees...they better have some basis in reality.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Again, then, what is the better use that unlocks this "$2B" in value to the city?

Nobody suggested it needed to generate $2billion in revenue for the city to be considered a "better use". Pretty much any other non-industrial use of the land would be of "better use".

I would suggest that if there is a foundation for showing that the trees produce/save $60 million and that is the basis for assigning a financial value on the trees....it would produce a much lower value than $7B.

Ok...so you did miss the point.

The $7billion figure is based on replacement value. The $60 million figure is to point out that the trees are more than just decorative. And the point being made was to counter the suggestion that these sort of assets don't have values that can, or have been calculated.

 

[TOareaFan]

Nobody suggested it needed to generate $2billion in revenue for the city to be considered a "better use". Pretty much any other non-industrial use of the land would be of "better use".

I get that you are opposed to the airport being there and are inclined towards the "anything else" point, but if the argument is that the airport is wasting a $2B asset and that some other use would unlock that (or part of that) value it would be handy to know what that use is.

Ok...so you did miss the point.

The $7billion figure is based on replacement value. The $60 million figure is to point out that the trees are more than just decorative. And the point being made was to counter the suggestion that these sort of assets don't have values that can, or have been calculated.

I guess I got sidetracked by the use of the word value. Replacement value or "cost" is not necessarily "value" (eg. most rental apartment buildings in Ontario have replacement value/cost that is significantly higher than their value).

Yes it would be very expensive to replace all the trees in Toronto (thank goodness we don't have to) but to suggest that is their "value" is wrong....perhaps it is just semantics.

 

[freshcutgrass]

if the argument is that the airport is wasting a $2B asset and that some other use would unlock that (or part of that) value it would be handy to know what that use is.

I am not going to continue to hand hold you through this process. Obviously, the $2billion figure is showing the maximum estimated value of the land if it were to be fully developed. Nobody is suggesting that is the only alternative to the status quo. The entire point is that the status quo is a poor use of a very valuable asset from both an environmental, contextual compatibility and financial aspect.

There's a reason you don't see airports in the middle of the CBDs of major global cities. Ours is just a leftover part of an industrial harbour that no longer exists.

I guess I got sidetracked by the use of the word value. Replacement value or "cost" is not necessarily "value" (eg. most rental apartment buildings in Ontario have replacement value/cost that is significantly higher than their value).

Actually, you may be dead wrong here. The commercial value of a mature tree as sold for lumber will be greater than the cost to purchase it in the first place. There's something called a "lumber industry" that you may have heard of that works on that very principle.

Of course the city doesn't plant trees to harvest as lumber, which is why we use replacement value.

Yes it would be very expensive to replace all the trees in Toronto (thank goodness we don't have to)

Well yea...we actually do have to replace all of them (and then some, as we have a plan to double our tree canopy).

A tree is simply a piece of infrastructure. It is something that must be purchased, installed and maintained by trained staff. It has a planned lifespan and must be removed and disposed of and replaced. All this requires a budget the same as any other infrastructure in the city. There's nothing semantic about it.

 

[Southcore]

France warns tourists about Chicago's West Side, Far South Side

The French guidance for visitors to Chicago — eviter le West Side et le sud de la ville apr es la 59 eme rue — means "Avoid the West Side and the south of the city after 59th Street." In effect, anything more than two blocks south of the Museum of Science and Industry is a French no-go zone

On the bright side the city still had a record for overseas visitors for 2012, 1.369 million

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78240410/

 

[freshcutgrass]

It would seem both cities are pretty close in terms of overseas visitors. Toronto with slightly more at 1.38 million in 2012.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I can't believe that Toronto has more visitors than Chicago. I always thought that Chicago would have more because of the greater international recognition that I assume it had.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I can't believe that Toronto has more visitors than Chicago. I always thought that Chicago would have more because of the greater international recognition that I assume it had.

Because of the high percentage of Torontonians born abroad (much higher than Chicago), I'm guessing that most overseas visitors to Toronto are visiting family that emigrated.

 

[NorthYorkEd]

Because of the high percentage of Torontonians born abroad (much higher than Chicago), I'm guessing that most overseas visitors to Toronto are visiting family that emigrated.

^ Exactly.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm guessing that most overseas visitors to Toronto are visiting family that emigrated.

The figure for 2011 was 40%. Haven't checked what it is for Chicago.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Further thoughts on the Chicago Tribune article about France's tourist warnings...

France warns tourists about Chicago's West Side, Far South Side



On the bright side the city still had a record for overseas visitors for 2012, 1.369 million

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78240410/

SC: This is a very interesting article about Chicago South Side neighborhoods and I will clarify further this:

The neighborhood mentioned is the Hyde Park/University of Chicago area and I will mention that the "dividing line" here
was East 61st Street - the boundary literally between Hyde Park and the Woodlawn neighborhood to the south - one of
Chicago's tougher neighborhoods back when I regularly visited Chicago from 1973 to 1988 and no doubt still today...

In my opinion they more then likely meant to mention 61st Street...To the N of that point is the U of C campus along with a
parkway called the "Midway Plaisance" and as mentioned S of East 61st Street the demographic is totally different...

That "dividing line" then follows South Cottage Grove Avenue (800 E.) north one block to 60th Street - the CTA Jackson Park rapid transit
line was truncated one mile W to end at 63/Cottage Grove eliminating stations at 63/University (1200 E.) and 63/ Stony Island
(1600 E.) first in the early 80s from the former JP Stony Island terminal when the truss bridge across what is now the
Metra Electric rail line was condemned and the terminal moved to 63/University and second when the line was shut down during the mid 90s
for a re-construction project the terminal of this route was moved to 63/Cottage Grove as it is now in two half-mile segment eliminations...

Woodlawn is predominantly a lower income black neighborhood and I also remember that it was dangerous enough to
NOT attempt to walk two (or three) long Chicago blocks (1/4 or 3/8 mile) down to East 63rd Street to access the Jackson Park rapid transit line...

I would use Metra Electric (55-56-57th Street Station) to access the Museum of Science and Industry or ride in on a CTA bus
like the 55-Garfield route that literally ran to the Museum's door...

These neighborhoods are NOT in the Far South Side of Chicago which are areas in the City from 87th Street on further south...

I feel that the South Side of Chicago gets a notorious bad rap by many and from the time I spent there you just have to know
which neighborhoods to avoid on a safety standpoint - there are some dangerous places to avoid...

I learned the South Side well because of my relatives living in the Ashburn neighborhood on the SW Side...

LI MIKE

 

[DtTO]

It would seem both cities are pretty close in terms of overseas visitors. Toronto with slightly more at 1.38 million in 2012.

I had always thought that Toronto's figure was inflated because it included Americans as "overseas" visitors. I was wrong. Toronto does indeed receive more actual overseas visitors than Chicago.

Another fact that I found interesting is that Vancouver receives nearly as much tourists as Toronto. I'm not sure about the overseas numbers, but the total number of tourists, number of American tourists, and tourist spending are nearly identical to Toronto's numbers. (obviously, assuming that "about 60% of overnight tourists are from Canada" figure is accurate)

Vancouver / Toronto

Total overnight visitors: ~9m / 9.8m
American overnight visitors: 2m / 2m
Tourist spending: $4.4b / $4.6b

Interestingly notes: - The tourist spending figures are from 2006 for Vancouver, and 2011 for Toronto, so Vancouver might actually have a stronger tourism industry than Toronto now.
- Out of Toronto's 9.8m visitors, 6.4m (~65%) are from Canada, while that figure is 60% for Vancouver. If you do the math, you'll reach the conclusion that Vancouver actually receives 1.6m overseas overnight tourists per year, which is more than Toronto's ~1.4m.
- Vancouver's figures all predate the Olympics in 2010.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Vancouver does indeed seem to punch above it's weight in NA. Especially on how much visitors spend.


NORTH AMERICA Top 10 Destination Cities by International Overnight Visitors
MasterCard Global Destination Cities Index 2013

1. New York 11.5 mil
2. Los Angeles 4.8 mil
3. Miami 3.9 mil
4. Toronto 3.4 mil
5. Vancouver 3.4 mil
6. San Francisco 3.0 mil
7. Washington 2.3 mil
8. Chicago 2.2 mil
9. Montreal 2.0 mil
10. Boston 1.6 mil

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Vancouver does indeed seem to punch above it's weight in NA. Especially on how much visitors spend.


NORTH AMERICA Top 10 Destination Cities by International Overnight Visitors
MasterCard Global Destination Cities Index 2013

1. New York 11.5 mil
2. Los Angeles 4.8 mil
3. Miami 3.9 mil
4. Toronto 3.4 mil
5. Vancouver 3.4 mil
6. San Francisco 3.0 mil
7. Washington 2.3 mil
8. Chicago 2.2 mil
9. Montreal 2.0 mil
10. Boston 1.6 mil

Because of the high percentage of Torontonians born abroad (much higher than Chicago), I'm guessing that most overseas visitors to Toronto are visiting family that emigrated.

The spending numbers seem to indicate otherwise. Typically, visiting families wouldn't spend that much. They don't need to stay at hotels or purchase food.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I had always thought that Toronto's figure was inflated because it included Americans as "overseas" visitors. I was wrong. Toronto does indeed receive more actual overseas visitors than Chicago.

Another fact that I found interesting is that Vancouver receives nearly as much tourists as Toronto. I'm not sure about the overseas numbers, but the total number of tourists, number of American tourists, and tourist spending are nearly identical to Toronto's numbers. (obviously, assuming that "about 60% of overnight tourists are from Canada" figure is accurate)

Vancouver / Toronto

Total overnight visitors: ~9m / 9.8m
American overnight visitors: 2m / 2m
Tourist spending: $4.4b / $4.6b

Interestingly notes: - The tourist spending figures are from 2006 for Vancouver, and 2011 for Toronto, so Vancouver might actually have a stronger tourism industry than Toronto now.
- Out of Toronto's 9.8m visitors, 6.4m (~65%) are from Canada, while that figure is 60% for Vancouver. If you do the math, you'll reach the conclusion that Vancouver actually receives 1.6m overseas overnight tourists per year, which is more than Toronto's ~1.4m.
- Vancouver's figures all predate the Olympics in 2010.

I can't say that I'm surprised Vancouver is performing so well. It's an amazing city to visit and live in.

I had always thought that Toronto's figure was inflated because it included Americans as "overseas" visitors. I was wrong. Toronto does indeed receive more actual overseas visitors than Chicago.

Chicago is one of America's premier cities. It's all over the media and presumably has greater international recognition (does it?). The fact that Toronto has more overseas visitors than Chicago blows my mind. I can't think of anything about Toronto that would make it a more attractive tourist destination than Chicago. But perhaps I'm just underestimating this city again.