So to jammer's point, we actually do have money for investing in tourism projects. There is a hotel tax that is charged and it was that tax that funded the $25 million + for Canada Life Centre upgrades. So the taxpayers of London did not spend any extra money for that.
With regards to your points bolognium, I am all for more residential as I stated in my first post. But residential is not the entire puzzle solved, just a piece of the puzzle to create a healthy downtown.
With regards to the aquarium that Chattanooga built (and many other cities too long to list), the facts speak for themselves. It draws 700,000 paid visitors a year and has had over 20,000,000 visitors to date. A lot of those visitors stay overnight at hotels, spend money at restaurants, etc. I know this because my family actually went there, stayed over and ate out there. It's not about "making me happy", but rather it is understanding the advantage London has being located halfway between two major metros and within driving distance of several millions of people.
I don't think I suggested axing any other improvements downtown at the expense of building a nice attraction. The fact is that having a good attraction causes businesses to want to be downtown and they will actually pay for their own improvements.
Since the Chattanooga Aquarium was built, it has had over $5 billion of investment in downtown Chattanooga. See the article below. The aquarium WAS what drove that investment. I'm not trying to be rude, but do you ever visit other cities? Or do you think London should stay in it's bubble and not look at why other cities are successful and learn how we can be better?
(
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2017/apr/23/aquarium-attraction25-years-tennessee-aquariu/)
Threaded Mode