Toronto Tourism

[Tewder]

It seems to me that the debate over the Olympics has been inconclusive. Some cities/games have done better than others, and some have done very well and some haven't. It's all over the map, in other words. As I stated before, the outcome likely depends on the context going into it... and there are so many intangibles that it is difficult to quantify anything other than the costs, and this will always skew the end picture, which just plays into the agenda of those who are already anti-Olympics to start with (and as an organization I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the IOC and so do understand where some are coming from in this regard).

I'm not suggesting that Toronto should or shouldn't pursue the games, i haven't made my mind up on it. On the one hand the Pan Ams seem promising and they have stimulated some great things for the city, and this would just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of an Olympics Games. Also, in a Toronto context I would be far less concerned about the corruption, waste and disorganization that have plagued some other host cities, I feel we would do better. On the other hand, I'm not sure we're up to the challenge of the Olympics quite yet and we would certainly require a great amount of provincial and federal financial support to even contemplate such a massive project.

 

[diminutive]

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'??

Every area of London has seen massive 'urban renewal.' The property market there is absolutely insane. The last thing London was ever short of was property investment. Maybe the Olympics redirected some investment from Dalston to Stratford. The idea that Stratford would have been the one part of London not to see renewal sans Oympics is hard to believe.

It seems to me that the debate over the Olympics has been inconclusive. Some cities/games have done better than others, and some have done very well and some haven't. It's all over the map, in other words. As I stated before, the outcome likely depends on the context going into it... and there are so many intangibles that it is difficult to quantify anything other than the costs, and this will always skew the end picture, which just plays into the agenda of those who are already anti-Olympics to start with (and as an organization I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the IOC and so do understand where some are coming from in this regard).

It's not inconclusive at all. Nobody can ever find the supposed 'benefits' of the Olympics.

Theoretically, it doesn't even make sense that events like the Olympics could ever generate net-positive impacts. If the Olympics really were such a free lunch, every city and country on Earth would be falling over each other to host them. If it really was clear that you could generate a net-positive return by hosting them EVERYONE would try to do it, bidding up the cost to host them in the first place and wiping out any net gains.

The idea that there are these free lunches floating around makes no sense.

Maybe a better question to ask is 'who do the Olympics benefit?' since the answer is much clearer there. They benefit the real estate industry, the hotel industry, attached trade unions, the 'national greatness industry' and certain elite politicians that get to wave the flag. Not surprisingly, since these groups tend to dominate authoritarian states, the hosting process is becoming dominated by authoritarian states; everyone but Almaty and Beijing has dropped out of the bidding for 2022.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

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

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_da_Amazônia

You're saying the state of Amazon and the Brazilian Development bank have nothing better to spend their money on than a football stadium for the Nacionals? Whose owner spent $0 for his team's stadium? And, yes, Olympic stadium was a boondoggle. And SkyDome was a boondoggle. And BC Place is a boondoggle. And every other publicly-funded stadium for a private sports team is a boondoggle. The fact that the only spent $200M to build a 41,000 seat stadium? So... less boondoggle than most.

How much did Toronto pay for the Aquarium? It's private and Toronto didn't pay for it to be built. That's the essence of what I'm saying -- private companies will spend on projects. The government shouldn't.

 

[nfitz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_da_Amazônia

You're saying the state of Amazon and the Brazilian Development bank have nothing better to spend their money on than a football stadium for the Nacionals? Whose owner spent $0 for his team's stadium? And, yes, Olympic stadium was a boondoggle. And SkyDome was a boondoggle. And BC Place is a boondoggle. And every other publicly-funded stadium for a private sports team is a boondoggle. The fact that the only spent $200M to build a 41,000 seat stadium? So... less boondoggle than most.

I'm not sure why you pick on that stadium in particular then. It was not the most expensive stadium by far. It's an absolute bargain compared to the current major stadiums in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver!

 

[Tewder]

Every area of London has seen massive 'urban renewal.' The property market there is absolutely insane. The last thing London was ever short of was property investment. Maybe the Olympics redirected some investment from Dalston to Stratford. The idea that Stratford would have been the one part of London not to see renewal sans Oympics is hard to believe.

We're talking about infrastructure investment, not private property development. You can speculate all you want about what public realm development would or would not have been sans olympics but it's only speculation... fortunately you don't have to, we know what the area was like before the games and how it is now after the games so the net improvements are clear:

From the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympics-legacy-did-the-games-succeed-in-rejuvenating-east-london-8711691.html

It's not inconclusive at all. Nobody can ever find the supposed 'benefits' of the Olympics.

As with previous posters, this is a very bold blanket statement without any documentation. It is just your bias, which is fine but present it as so rather than as fact. There is all kinds of literature about the negative risks of the olympics, but there's a lot of writing about the intangible benefits too. The reality in many of the more successful games likely falls somewhere in the middle... which is why your next point is incorrect:

Theoretically, it doesn't even make sense that events like the Olympics could ever generate net-positive impacts. If the Olympics really were such a free lunch, every city and country on Earth would be falling over each other to host them. If it really was clear that you could generate a net-positive return by hosting them EVERYONE would try to do it, bidding up the cost to host them in the first place and wiping out any net gains.

If there were no net positive impacts no country would host them, whether they had the means or not... and certainly not a city like London which as you say seems to not need them anyway. London did seek to host them though as do many other nations under many different economic/political regimes, which would seem to belie your point of 'no benefits'. As for the 'free lunch' part? Nobody ever claimed this. They are enormously costly and recognized as such, which is why every country on earth is not 'falling over each other to host them'. Many countries simply do not have the means to partake. As with any other investment the returns may potentially be there but the cost of entry may be prohibitive.

Again, i'm not claiming the olympics are always a success, but not all disasters are unmitigated and some have not been disasters at all, they've been very positive for the host city. You've got far more of an uphill battle to prove your point that the games are 'conclusively' bad and without benefits at all.

 

[diminutive]

We're talking about infrastructure investment, not private property development. You can speculate all you want about what public realm development would or would not have been sans olympics but it's only speculation... fortunately you don't have to, we know what the area was like before the games and how it is now after the games so the net improvements are clear:

That's not the case at all. You're simply attributing all the development in Stratford to the Olympics, which is insane. There has been massive redevelopment literally all over London (and the world...). You have to tease out what the marginal contribution of the Olympics were.

There's absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that cities who've hosted the Olympics have better infrastructure than non-host cities.

As with previous posters, this is a very bold blanket statement without any documentation. It is just your bias, which is fine but present it as so rather than as fact. There is all kinds of literature about the negative risks of the olympics, but there's a lot of writing about the intangible benefits too. The reality in many of the more successful games likely falls somewhere in the middle... which is why your next point is incorrect:

It's not "my opinion." There is a very wide and very deep literature on this topic. No matter how many times people study it the results are never better than ambiguous. It's bad across events, whether it's the Superbowl or Formula 1 or your run of the mill publicly-funded stadium. Anyone who thinks spending billions of dollars for Zaha Hadid to build stadiums is the path to prosperity is just completely out to lunch.

If there were no net positive impacts no country would host them, whether they had the means or not... and certainly not a city like London which as you say seems to not need them anyway. London did seek to host them though as do many other nations under many different economic/political regimes, which would seem to belie your point of 'no benefits'. As for the 'free lunch' part? Nobody ever claimed this. They are enormously costly and recognized as such, which is why every country on earth is not 'falling over each other to host them'. Many countries simply do not have the means to partake. As with any other investment the returns may potentially be there but the cost of entry may be prohibitive.

You are claiming there's a free lunch. You're claiming there's some kind of substantial net economic benefit which accrues to cities from hosting the Olympics. If that were the case, every city on Earth would try to host them.

Since the benefits and costs of the Olympics are apportioned unevenly, the only cities you see bidding nowadays tend to be highly autocratic ones where the development industry is politically dominant. In places like Qatar or Sochi the local development elites can simply use these mega-events as billion dollar giveaways from the central governments.

Again, i'm not claiming the olympics are always a success, but not all disasters are unmitigated and some have not been disasters at all, they've been very positive for the host city. You've got far more of an uphill battle to prove your point that the games are 'conclusively' bad and without benefits at all.

This is backwards. Olympic boosters have to make their case that the games are anything better than ambiguous. Instead of proving conclusive benefits from the Games you keep going to more and more "intangible" benefits.

 

[Tewder]

That's not the case at all. You're simply attributing all the development in Stratford to the Olympics, which is insane. There has been massive redevelopment literally all over London (and the world...). You have to tease out what the marginal contribution of the Olympics were.

Development around the world or even the rest of London isn't the issue here. We're talking about the development of specific public infrastructure in specific derelict lands that occurred because of the games. Again, it's very simple to understand: see what was there before and compare with what is there after. It is there because of the olympics, to insist it would be there anyway regardless of olympic games is blatant conjecture... or prove it! Prove that this massive multi-billion redevelopment scheme was already on the books and would have gone ahead if London had not been granted the games.

There's absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that cities who've hosted the Olympics have better infrastructure than non-host cities.

Nobody ever made such a claim. One might claim that cities that have hosted successful games end up with better infrastructure than the same cities had before them. Look at Vancouver for example if you don't like London.... or as with London are you going to claim that Vancouver would have planned, funded and delivered on all of the infrastructure upgrades without the games?

It's not "my opinion." There is a very wide and very deep literature on this topic. No matter how many times people study it the results are never better than ambiguous.

Ok, well i'll take 'ambiguous'! This is not the same as 'conclusively' bad though, wouldn't you agree? I started out with just such a point, maybe weighted slightly different. The costs are easier to quantify than the values derived from them, and there is a vast difference in the experience of different games/cities which cloud the issues even more... not to mention the IOC seems to be an increasingly vile and corrupt organization.

You are claiming there's a free lunch. You're claiming there's some kind of substantial net economic benefit which accrues to cities from hosting the Olympics. If that were the case, every city on Earth would try to host them.

I am claiming no such thing. As i already said the cost of admittance is prohibitive for many countries, but this doesn't mean they wouldn't seek to host if they had the means.

What clouds the issue though is the fact that intangible benefits are extremely difficult to measure, but it doesn't mean they aren't real. In addition to urban renewal (tangible benefits), for example, there were all kinds of social, cultural and promotional objectives behind the London games which if they were realized - and i'm not saying they were or weren't, though i believe they were - are intangible benefits of having hosted the games, among others.

Since the benefits and costs of the Olympics are apportioned unevenly, the only cities you see bidding nowadays tend to be highly autocratic ones where the development industry is politically dominant. In places like Qatar or Sochi the local development elites can simply use these mega-events as billion dollar giveaways from the central governments.

Well Sochi notwithstanding the last two games were Vancouver and London. Both these cities are within constitutional monarchies but I think it's a stretch to consider Canada or the UK autocratic. In fact, both are very progressive centrist nation states with much admired social programs, not the kind of places that decide to fund billions of dollars just for fun and games. Again, I do agree that host cities have been a mixed bag; large and small, autocratic or not, and so on, and so the experience of every city/games is not the same.

 

[Cobra]

How to revive Toronto tourism?

Publicity perhaps?
I even saw Quebec City and Mont-Tremblant in TTC Subway station...even Kingston and Saskatchewan. I've travelled a lot and Toronto is totally absent... They are nowhere abroad, not even Montreal

 

[JasonParis]

Two summers ago, it seemed we couldn't escape Toronto ads on bus shelters across the UK (as one example).

 

[LowPolygon]

The 26 Most Hipster Neighborhoods In The World

https://trove.com/me/content/WYo1r?chid=168783&_p=troveTrendingInternal

Yes, West Queen West made the list (second from bottom).
No, the photo illustrating the neighborhood is not of West Queen West.

 

[christiesplits]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tourist-destination-for-2016/article28072996/

Toronto has made it onto the New York Times’s list of 52 top global tourist destinations for 2016, at No. 7.

The publication says Toronto is “ready for its close-up” and has been “quietly slipping out of the shadow of Montreal and Vancouver.”

It singles out the public art, green spaces, bike paths and promenades of Queen’s Quay on Lake Ontario and the former industrial area known as The Junction, and cites the convenience of the new Union Pearson express train without mentioning the controversy over its cost and low ridership.

 

[pman]

So if I understand correctly we've moved on from the Olympics and are savouring our Sally Field moment. Maybe it's time for a decent marketing campaign in the US northeast and Midwest. If nothing else the Loonie's collapse has made us a cheap destination, and with their building recovery the Americans are flush. The NYT article seems to suggest our grubby yet acceptably energetic vibe in a Queen's sort of way can be marketed to a certain kind of New Yorker.

 

[old boy]

Really, who writes this stuff ? Why the need to bring up a Union Express ridership controversy in the article itself ? However, it is interesting to learn the city " is quietly slipping out of the shadow of Montreal and Vancouver "... who woulda thought.

 

[Northern Light]

So if I understand correctly we've moved on from the Olympics and are savouring our Sally Field moment. Maybe it's time for a decent marketing campaign in the US northeast and Midwest. If nothing else the Loonie's collapse has made us a cheap destination, and with their building recovery the Americans are flush. The NYT article seems to suggest our grubby yet acceptably energetic vibe in a Queen's sort of way can be marketed to a certain kind of New Yorker.

I think being a regional powerhouse, particularly to the midwest United States, but also to Quebecois is very important.

Though there is room to build us up overseas as well.

In the U.S. midwest, I think there are 2 critical issues to building us up, Awareness (are we top of mind, do we advertise well?) and ease of travel.

When we were drawing in busloads from Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo and Rochester.............what was different?

Now that the currency is lower again, one can point to 3 other obvious things, the first, is that a passport/nexus card was not previously required to cross the border.

The second is that traffic wasn't near as bad, if one was traveling by car/bus (I would estimate the trip from Buffalo to have lengthened by at least 30 minutes each way in the last 20 years, and maybe more.

The other is that back then (late 90s) we had the tail end of Livent, pushing mega-musicals and advertising on a grand scale for them in the US midwest (at a level Mirvish simply has never equaled).

**

To resuscitate this market we need to ask (and answer):

How can we get the attention of mid-western Americans? (advertising tops the list, but this is also about advertorial, like comping their local tv stations and radio etc. to come shoot from Toronto for a week, all expenses paid).

That drives traffic.

*
How can we make sure more Americans find it easier to travel to the GTA? ( I would first argue for incenting Americans who book an overnight stay here by agreeing to rebate the cost of their passport if obtained in the preceding six months.

I would also suggest, that in the absence of a scheme that performs traffic miracles, we need alternative travel for Americans, particularly from Buffalo, and train would be an obvious choice. Currently they have only the Maple Leaf which because of its connection to NYC is notoriously unreliable in terms of schedule, and only operates once per day.

I would think of subsidizing VIA/Amtrak or a private contractor to a provide rail shuttle service w/pre-clearance customs, 3-4 times daily, on weekends/holidays, and 2x per day the rest of the year.
With a focus on running express from the U.S. border to Toronto-Union and a trip time under 2hrs 20.

I think that would open our market to more people and remove the barrier of traffic jams/long trips.

**

In terms Quebec, I think awareness comes first; followed again, by ease of travel, (be that faster, more frequent trains, or efforts to reduce total airport wait times, for a purely domestic flight) such that a weekend trip is simply less hassle.

***

Internationally, beyond advertising, I think we have to do a better job of playing to our strengths. People from Europe arent' coming just for the cafes; or our museums, nor are folks from Asia coming just to admire our skyline or the busy streetlife.

They will come here for what they can NOT find at home. I think selling nature is a key part of selling our City. That will include the naturalized Don Mouth, and Rouge National Park; but more obviously
includes Niagara Falls and for that matter the Escarpment. We can offer a lot more nature within an hour's drive than the vast majority of Europe or Asia.

Our diversity really can be our strength as well, in that we really do have more quality cuisine and clothing from more cultures than the vast majority of cities on earth.

That said, we don't do a good job of highlighting it. Our principle Chinatown lacks an archway; our 'little India' isn't particularly mesmerizing, despite what it does offer.

The same could be said for many other 'ethic nodes' where we have critical masses of retail/restos of one variety or another.

It needn't be kitch, but it does need to feel distinct and special.

 

[wild goose chase]

How can we make sure more Americans find it easier to travel to the GTA? ( I would first argue for incenting Americans who book an overnight stay here by agreeing to rebate the cost of their passport if obtained in the preceding six months.

Does the passport requirement put off many from visiting? Was there much more tourism from the US to Toronto back when passports weren't required to cross back and forth?

Internationally, beyond advertising, I think we have to do a better job of playing to our strengths. People from Europe arent' coming just for the cafes; or our museums, nor are folks from Asia coming just to admire our skyline or the busy streetlife.

They will come here for what they can NOT find at home. I think selling nature is a key part of selling our City. That will include the naturalized Don Mouth, and Rouge National Park; but more obviously
includes Niagara Falls and for that matter the Escarpment. We can offer a lot more nature within an hour's drive than the vast majority of Europe or Asia.

For those international travellers that are flying long-distance visiting the Toronto area or nearby areas of Ontario more generally who would like nature, Algonquin Park three hours or so away is a good place to go, especially if they have nothing like it in their home country.

Our diversity really can be our strength as well, in that we really do have more quality cuisine and clothing from more cultures than the vast majority of cities on earth.

That said, we don't do a good job of highlighting it. Our principle Chinatown lacks an archway; our 'little India' isn't particularly mesmerizing, despite what it does offer.

The same could be said for many other 'ethic nodes' where we have critical masses of retail/restos of one variety or another.

It needn't be kitch, but it does need to feel distinct and special.

The cultural diversity is definitely a great thing worth displaying more to outsiders (I know even though we pride ourselves on at least claiming to be the most multicultural city, there are many people from other cities and countries that are quite unaware that Toronto is diverse).

However, I'm not sure if many people specifically visit cities to see diversity primarily (though it is a great bonus) as the other major diverse cities -- NYC, LA, London, Sydney etc., have tourist attractions that were already there aside from the cultural/ethnic diversity to see.