Toronto Tourism

[nfitz]

That's a pretty bold statement of fact considering you have no documentation.

There were various media reports I read during the 2012 Olympic Games and the 2014 FIFA World Cup about the poor tourism that year in both countries.

Neither place needed any boost in terms of tourist awareness. I've read less about Vancouver.

How much extra tourism did Winnipeg get after they hosted the Pan-Am games?

 

[Torontovibe]

It's a well known fact that tourism went down in both China and Australia, during the Olympics and the big boost to tourism expected afterwards, did not occur. I read a number of reports about how the Olympics does not help tourism. Olympic cheerleaders always claim an Olympics will be a big boost to tourism (they use that to justify the huge costs) but they know the reality is quite different.

Read these articles about Sydney.

http://www.afr.com/p/olympic_tourism_impact_is_complicated_6fTAPM7KefzR4bOqsSww5L
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...911090997?nk=f16abffa3660bd5c5b59caacbb69e6de

This is what typically happens during an Olympics.

London

http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/03/london-olympics-good-for-sport-bad-for-tourism/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ist-sites-experience-worst-summer-decade.html

 

[Tewder]

I don't know, London has a pretty saturated tourist market to start with. Were the Olympics really going to help what didn't need helping? This is conjecture on my part but i doubt the real objective was any short term blip in tourism, it was far more long term: an ongoing strategy to establish and reinforce the London brand in the international marketplace. They've been enormously successful at doing this in the UK... and this is something Toronto could benefit from!

 

[junctionist]

I'm not interested in seeing any Olympic city of the past 4 years at the moment. With that said, the Olympics have a great effect on infrastructure building. The new infrastructure that cities build for the Olympics improves their standard of living and economic competitiveness.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not interested in seeing any Olympic city of the past 4 years at the moment. With that said, the Olympics have a great effect on infrastructure building. The new infrastructure that cities build for the Olympics improves their standard of living and economic competitiveness.

I'm curious as to how the Big O and the Velodrome in Montreal improved either their standard of living or economic competitiveness. There were plans for a baseball stadium predating the Olympics. The Metro extension past the Olympic stadium was planned long before the Olympics were awarded.

 

[diminutive]

I'm not interested in seeing any Olympic city of the past 4 years at the moment. With that said, the Olympics have a great effect on infrastructure building. The new infrastructure that cities build for the Olympics improves their standard of living and economic competitiveness.

Is there any evidence that Olympic host cities even have 'better' infrastructure than their peer cities? Montreal's infrastructure isn't better than Toronto's. LA or Atlanta hardly have the best in the US. Barcelona isn't better than Madrid. What on Earth did London get out of the Olympics, a piddly cable car?

If you look at infrastructure quality index's like Mercer's, there's no obvious correlation between having hosted the games and doing well.

At best, there's sometimes a spurious correlation where broad, macro-economic expansions lead both to infrastructure spending boosts and greater willingness to bid on vanity events like the Olympics (e.g. Barcelona or Seoul in the '80s, Beijing more recently).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Toronto is a city for living, not a city for tourism. That's what NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles, Shanghai are for.

 

[howl]

Toronto is a city for living, not a city for tourism. That's what NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles, Shanghai are for.

I don't think your statement is true, but I think you've hit on something. What attracts people to visit a city is often the people who live in the city, and the things they built for themselves, not things built specifically to attract tourists. People visit NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles, Shanghai and Toronto because of the people who live in those cities. The museums, and concert halls, and monuments and parks in those cities were primarily built as infrastructure for the residents, and as such they captured the essence and uniqueness of the city. It is that uniqueness that attracts tourists. Cities built primarily for tourists are not cities, they are vacation centres.

 

[Tewder]

I'm curious as to how the Big O and the Velodrome in Montreal improved either their standard of living or economic competitiveness.

What on Earth did London get out of the Olympics, a piddly cable car?

I have to question the objectivity of these posts. Not every olympic city/games scenario is the same, there have been more successful ones and less so, obviously. Montreal definitely tilts towards the 'less so' spectrum. The city was on the brink of decline already due to the separatist movement and it's been no secret that the games and city were notoriously corrupt.... and London? The games were used to leverage massive urban renewal and infrastructure development in a major area of the east end... 'piddly cable car'??

What attracts people to visit a city is often the people who live in the city, and the things they built for themselves, not things built specifically to attract tourists. People visit NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles, Shanghai and Toronto because of the people who live in those cities. The museums, and concert halls, and monuments and parks in those cities were primarily built as infrastructure for the residents, and as such they captured the essence and uniqueness of the city. It is that uniqueness that attracts tourists. Cities built primarily for tourists are not cities, they are vacation centres.

On the contrary, those cities you mention would not be the great 'tourist' cities they are if it wasn't for the ongoing history in those places of mass-planned strategic construction/infrastructure projects/events undertaken to promote themselves. The Eiffel Tower was built for a world's fair for god's sake!

No, what separates the greatly admired cities from the forgettable mediocre ones is the long term vision, leadership and wisdom in understanding the value of massive promotional events rather than getting hooked up on the cost of them. In the best scenarios these events are an opportunity to invest in infrastructure, to brand the city long term on the world stage and thereby develop tourism and investment, and to create historic moments for the city. If the games (or whatever event in question) turn out badly it is likely attributable to the context/objectives being bad/corrupt to start with...

 

[TrickyRicky]

The one thing I will say in defense of the "infrastructure factor" in regards to big events is that they do help in my opinion in terms of execution. Having a deadline to strive towards matters. We are seeing that in Toronto today. You can argue about the long-term benefit etc. but there is no doubt that having the Pan Am games deadline is helping motivate all kinds of projects to completion. Lately in this city having some motivation to drive a project forward is something we really do need. It's like how doing that renovation or fixing up your place at this time of year sure gets done if you are having your family over for Christmas.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The one thing I will say in defense of the "infrastructure factor" in regards to big events is that they do help in my opinion in terms of execution. Having a deadline to strive towards matters. We are seeing that in Toronto today. You can argue about the long-term benefit etc. but there is no doubt that having the Pan Am games deadline is helping motivate all kinds of projects to completion. Lately in this city having some motivation to drive a project forward is something we really do need. It's like how doing that renovation or fixing up your place at this time of year sure gets done if you are having your family over for Christmas.

I argued against the Pan Ams (and sports tourism in general) as they tend to suck infrastructure dollars into weird black holes, but I've been very pleasantly surprised by the professionalism of the Pan Am builders. The Athlete's Village project has just accelerated WDL but not changed it, thanks to WT. The velodrome and aquatic centre are probably boondoggles to some extent, but the York track, Tiger Cats stadium rebuild, and CNE facilities have been well thought through, IMHO.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the Pan Ams. I think they could be a lot of fun and will put a lot of tourists into Harbourfront and downtown at a very pretty time of the year for Toronto.

And totally disagree with Nfitz on Vancouver. Whistler may have had less folks on the ski hill, but downtown Van is not a 'tourist site' in February, ever. London had no need for a Games, and Brazil built a football stadium in the Amazon -- the essence of boondoggle. Toronto seems to have done OK in not overdoing the facilities build.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm not interested in seeing any Olympic city of the past 4 years at the moment. With that said, the Olympics have a great effect on infrastructure building. The new infrastructure that cities build for the Olympics improves their standard of living and economic competitiveness.

Sorry, this is flat out wrong. Many, many studies state the exact opposite. There's a whole thread on UT arguing that point in the context of the Toronto Olympic bid that, thankfully, died a quick death.

 

[aquateam]

Sorry, this is flat out wrong. Many, many studies state the exact opposite. There's a whole thread on UT arguing that point in the context of the Toronto Olympic bid that, thankfully, died a quick death.

I think it really depends on context. We have a very stingy Federal government, and it seems like the only way to get Federal money is to have some kind of world event. Muskoka got an artificial lake for the G20, maybe if we tie a complete DRL subway line to our olympic bid (like how the UPX is inexplicably part of our PanAm bid) we'd actually get significant Federal infrastructure cash, that would leave a better legacy than some highly specialized olympic-quality horseback archery facilities (or whatever it is we'd have to build).

 

[nfitz]

And totally disagree with Nfitz on Vancouver. Whistler may have had less folks on the ski hill, but downtown Van is not a 'tourist site' in February, ever.

Whistler surely is a tourist site in February. Though your right, Toronto in July is more comparable to London in July.

Brazil built a football stadium in the Amazon -- the essence of boondoggle.

Why do you say that? The one in Manaus - a city of over million people? That new stadium wasn't particularly large, only 41,000 people. The stadium it replaced dated back to the 1950s, wasn't an all-seater, and held 46,000.

I don't see how replacing an old decrepit, but well-used stadium with a modern one of equal size, in a large metropolitan city is the essence of boondoggle. The stadium cost a fraction of the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, or the Skydome in Toronto, and even half the cost of the recent BC Place renovations. Can you explain the logic behind that judgement of yours?

 

[TOareaFan]

I think it really depends on context. We have a very stingy Federal government, and it seems like the only way to get Federal money is to have some kind of world event. Muskoka got an artificial lake for the G20, maybe if we tie a complete DRL subway line to our olympic bid (like how the UPX is inexplicably part of our PanAm bid) we'd actually get significant Federal infrastructure cash, that would leave a better legacy than some highly specialized olympic-quality horseback archery facilities (or whatever it is we'd have to build).

No they did not....in this internet age this is how legends get wrongly built.....it is the old party whisper game on hyper speed. The "fake lake" for the G20 was built at the Direct Energy centre at the Ex.....it was one small part (its $57k cost was about 3% of the total cost) of much larger toursim pavilion called Experience Canada that was meant to sell the foreign journalists that were at the DE Centre (it was the media pavilion for the G20 as most journos were not given access to the meetings in Huntsville). The fake lake was to show them what they were missing in Muskoka and as part of a bigger tourism exhibit "sell" an image of Canada to foreign journalists.....in the hope they would take that image/message home.