I'll preface this by saying I've worked at both the city and provincial level in tourism policy/research as well as having done a masters with a focus on tourism policy... so this isn't just coming out of no where.
The thing with Toronto's tourism is that being a newer city we lack something more iconic, beside the CN Tower, that distinguish Toronto from everyone else. Even a cliche tourist trap is better than nothing at all. People need to associate something special with Toronto and just Toronto to visit us, rather than, say Chicago or San Francisco.
Well if you want something iconic look no further than Niagara Falls. That's a pretty massive tourism draw, and both Toronto and Niagara should be working closer to promote the connection between both destinations as they both have a lot to offer. Furthermore, I think you're really over-estimating the importance of mass tourism, which has been in huge decline. People are seeking unique experiences, not something they can see on google street view.
Being close to Lake Ontario apparently hasn't become a selling point when it comes to tourism at all. Nobody is gonna rank Toronto' waterfront scene in terms of beauty ahead of Chicago's, which is closeby, not to mention so many large cities are either by the sea or by a river. Water is NOT special.
If you're going to compare Toronto's waterfront to the greatest waterfront in the world, then of course we'll look bad. If tourists only travelled to the places with the best ______ then tourism wouldn't be growing nearly as much as it is.
Our museums are second class just to be very honest, and they charge an arm and a leg, compared with the Metropolitan, MoMa, even le Louvre etc. Don't make excuses such as we are less subsidized etc. The tourists don't care. The sheer fact that Casa Loma charges $18 is pretty shocking in terms of what it offers. Even our super mini "shoe museum", which takes about 20 minutes to see, charges $14 if I am not mistaken. For someone well travelled, why should tourists spend $14 in that, compared with le Louvre, which charges similar price (10 euro)?
Because tourists don't care about cost. They understand that these sites cost money and they don't compare their options with international options. Again, you're comparing our assets to the best in the world, which is unfair. Furthermore, I think they offer many things that those museums don't offer and that's a focus on local art/history. Sure we don't have the Mona Lisa, but we have the Group of Seven, and you can't just see those pieces of art anywhere.
Yes, we have vibrant "neighbourhoods", but just by looking at how many other cities claim themselves to be "a city of neibourhoods" we can know that won't be a selling point either. How does busy Queen West stack up with SoHo in NYC, Oxford st in London, or Newbury St in Boston? Not that impressive either. Chinatown, Korea Town, Little Italy etc, if you travel enough, you have already seen enough of them, and they are all similar.
In an age of globalization, you're going to find the same stores on all of those streets. I don't know anyone who goes to London to see Oxford St. If they are they'll be utterly disappointed because they can find H&M anywhere. What makes a neighbourhood is the local flavour of it and the sense of place. It's Carnaby St and Kensington Market.
Our architecture is not strong either to be fair. Woodbine Beach is cool for locals, but let's be honest, we are not a tropical resort. People seldom come to Toronto for the beach scene.
People who travel somewhere to seek out interesting architecture find reasons to like architecture they see. Just as we have an entire forum of people who like elements of Toronto architecture, there are people who look to this city and see things they like. And you're right, people don't come here for beaches, just as people don't go to most urban places for beaches unless you're Rio or Miami. You can't expect to please everyone, but if you go just outside the city you'll find some of the worlds best spots for hiking, which Rio and Miami can't offer.
As to the CN tower, all I can say is that it is way too pricy for what it delivers. There are so many really highbuildings for people to go up and see in the world, but CN is one of the most expensive, and there is too little offered at the top there for the hype.
Again, tourists don't care much for price especially when it comes to these mass tourism sites. The other thing you're missing is that it isn't just about the height but what you can see from up there. You get a different view no matter which tall building you visit in the world.
The Hockey Hall of Fame is a very Canadian thing. However, how many hockey fans are there outside Canada? I myself haven't been there due to lack of interest.
If you're from another country, you'd probably find the hockey hall of fame interesting because of your lack of understanding about the sport. It'd be a museum to you in the same way people who aren't normally interested in ancient Egypt might find an ancient Egypt exhibit interesting. It also says a lot about Canada too, which people would find interesting. I've talked to many tourists who don't understand hockey but found the experience enjoyable.
On the other hand, we do have some decent theatres, restaurants etc. But I am afraid that's not enough.
Why not? Surprised you didn't compare our theatres to London or New York to be honest. You seemed to obsessed with people only wanting to see/do the best stuff they can in the world.
Most tourists need something special about a place, something you don't see elsewhere, to be excited about, to take photos of. They don't usually care much about livable neighbourhoods as they are not living here. Even something tacky, let it be a giant ferris wheel, or a 7 star casino, is better than nothing, and I am saying it from a pure tourist perspective, not to say constructing them makes economic sense.
This part displays your lack of understanding of tourism. You seem to have a great grasp of mass tourism, but little do you know that it's actually cultural tourism which is the fastest growing segment worldwide. People ARE interested in livable neighbourhoods (as they create vibrancy) and are avoiding those mass tourism sites you can google and experience rather easily. Hip, trendy, unique and "off the beaten path" are the most sought after tourist destinations. Especially if what you're seeking is quality rather than quantity of tourists (which is what every tourist destination should strive for as it leaves the least destructive impact on a community)
Street events are fun for local residents, but I don't think they help with tourism that much, unless it is really world famous, like the Rio Carnival. Nobody would fly to a foreign country just to see Nuit Blanche or Caribana.
Actually Caribana attracts thousands and thousands of Americans. As for Nuit Blanche, maybe it's not attracting people yet but give it time. the Carnival in Rio has been around for over a hundred years and is the largest event in the world. Again, stopped comparing us to the biggest and best. You're always going to be disappointed otherwise.
All that being said, Toronto doesn't really excel in the tourism section because we don't have enough "touristy", which ordinary people like. If the city does envision to be a bigger tourist city, a lot is needed.
As you can tell, I disagree wholeheartedly. I think what is needed is just a more focused approach to marketing and for government to start taking tourism more seriously (ie. end the high airline taxes, bring back the visitor tax exemptions, make visas easier to get, etc).