Vancouver’s low tourism grades spur sector reassessment

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You just don't get Vancouver.

Perhaps you'd be happier in Shanghai, or Sao Paolo.

I'm here, and will try to change what I can, so live with it.

[jlousa]

And I will do what i can to make Vancouver better too, fortunately for us my betterment doesn't include a ferris wheel.

[Metro-One]

We all know that haha.

Although Montreal has added a Ferris Wheel.

At first many Montreal forum members were poking fun at the idea / thought it was tacky, yet now all I see is positive remarks about its impact on the skyline....

A Ferris Wheel would also be a good excuse to add some much needed color to the night skyline in Vancouver...

Lonsdale, the New West River front, and even the River Rock Casino area would also be good locations for such a feature. Love the seaside / riverwalk random attractions one finds in other cities around the world (including Europe, which Vancouver loves to copy in other aspects).

[WarrenC12]

I'd be fine with a Ferris Wheel. It would be good to help develop another location, North Van or New West would be good. North Van would have the best views of course.

Trying to shoehorn it into English Bay or Coal Harbour would be lame IMO.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps a 50-60m wheel on a Granville Island parking lot? Put that viewcone to some actual use.

[djh]

I remember when they proposed the London Eye, we all laughed and there was a lot of "that's tacky" in the media at the time. The general consensus in my circle was sort of "why?!"
But then once it went in, of course we all tried it out grudgingly. Once trying it we realised it was not just a cheesy "Ferris Wheel", it was a major event, a legit tourist attraction, and really gave a different and unique view of the city. I think much of the general public mood on the Eye changed once people actually experienced it.

Now it is one of the top tourist attractions in London, and that's saying a lot.

I think the lesson is that just doing something because every other city has it is indeed pretty uninspiring. But if a city is going to do something, it better be better and different to what everybody else has done, thereby actually being worthy of your time and money.

A few years back there was a proposal for a tourist attraction at the peak of Queen Elizabeth Park. Not sure if a per-se "ferris wheel" would be the best choice, but I would certainly support some sort of tower or pinnacle or tourist attraction at that location, that gave amazing views of the city. But again, it would have to be more than just "pay your money, get 2 minutes of view, buh-bye"

[scryer]

Seriously, to sum it all up: I don't think that a Ferris Wheel is going to single-handedly enhance our tourism game.

I wonder, did this survey take into account Airbnb reservations?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Seriously, to sum it all up: I don't think that a Ferris Wheel is going to single-handedly enhance our tourism game.

Most definitely not. It would be a start, though.

Originally Posted by scryer

I wonder, did this survey take into account Airbnb reservations?

Unless Airbnbs start showing up on Expedia or Kayak, I doubt they'll be more than a footnote in any tourism study. Not exactly most tourists' first choice for lodging.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

I remember when they proposed the London Eye, we all laughed and there was a lot of "that's tacky" in the media at the time. The general consensus in my circle was sort of "why?!"
But then once it went in, of course we all tried it out grudgingly. Once trying it we realised it was not just a cheesy "Ferris Wheel", it was a major event, a legit tourist attraction, and really gave a different and unique view of the city. I think much of the general public mood on the Eye changed once people actually experienced it.

Now it is one of the top tourist attractions in London, and that's saying a lot.

I think the lesson is that just doing something because every other city has it is indeed pretty uninspiring. But if a city is going to do something, it better be better and different to what everybody else has done, thereby actually being worthy of your time and money.

A few years back there was a proposal for a tourist attraction at the peak of Queen Elizabeth Park. Not sure if a per-se "ferris wheel" would be the best choice, but I would certainly support some sort of tower or pinnacle or tourist attraction at that location, that gave amazing views of the city. But again, it would have to be more than just "pay your money, get 2 minutes of view, buh-bye"

I avoided lining up and paying the expensive ride entrance fee of the London Eye by hopping over to the South Banks, and spent time for a cocktail at the lounge on a 40-odd floor of the Shard tower (Shangrila Hotel). That was way higher than the London Eye, and there was no line-up going up. Next day I went over to the Ting restaurant (also on 40-something floor) for lunch and had a daytime view of London. I could see the London Eye below.

Moral of the story: we need a tower like the Shard with public amenities high up so we actually don't need a Ferris Wheel.

[misher]

I think we need to create some policies that support tourist oriented amenities. We definitely need a Disneyland (The PNE is nice but its honestly low class compared to the density of our city). Likely all the focus has been on housing so we've ignored tourism. My random thoughts are below.

We have all that riverfront development in the South East, definitely could use some cool stuff there.

I'd also like to develop the forest near UBC into more of a park, right now its a bit too wild for Tourism.

I know we built the village by the airport and it is expanding to increase retail. Perhaps we can even have a low rise hotel there on the water? Or even a waterfront neighborhood. We do have that beach by the airport. They are building the River Green community in Richmond thats supposed to be like a 5 star resort so perhaps we could put a nice hotel there as well? Add in a dock for boats/jetskis.

I know the water in the river is quite polluted...we definitely need to clean it up to encourage tourism and watersports.

Finally echoing Vin we need cool architecture. Right now I know most extra money goes to amenity contributions so if we waived those fees in return for it I'm sure we could see some much cooler buildings which public/tourist spaces.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

I'd also like to develop the forest near UBC into more of a park, right now its a bit too wild for Tourism.

Let's not go TOO overboard with urbanization. Sure, relax the viewcones, build highrises, densify the suburbs, run SkyTrain overhead, but all the empty forests like Stanley Park and Pacific Spirit are actually relevant to the "Super, Natural" theme we're trying to cultivate - and they're real nice to walk through. Not everything has to be manicured just because it's in a city.

[svlt]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's not go TOO overboard with urbanization. Sure, relax the viewcones, build highrises, densify the suburbs, run SkyTrain overhead, but all the empty forests like Stanley Park and Pacific Spirit are actually relevant to the "Super, Natural" theme we're trying to cultivate - and they're real nice to walk through. Not everything has to be manicured just because it's in a city.

Stanley Park is heavily urbanized and has plenty of tourism amenities in it already, definitely not a representation of Super Natural BC (plenty of North Shore activities fit better). Pacific Spirit could use a little bit of extra care and maintenance but there is something nice about having what is almost a straight up forest in the city's backyard.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by svlt

Stanley Park is heavily urbanized and has plenty of tourism amenities in it already, definitely not a representation of Super Natural BC (plenty of North Shore activities fit better). Pacific Spirit could use a little bit of extra care and maintenance but there is something nice about having what is almost a straight up forest in the city's backyard.

Stanley Park is pretty natural if you compare it to places like Central Park, Hyde Park, or even Toronto Island (maybe not a great example).

As for Pacific Spirit... I don't know what you could do with that place that will change anything. The location isn't conducive to tourism. Tourists might visit the Anthropology museum at UBC, and Wreck Beach...

[Capsicum]

Hmm... growing up as a Torontonian in the 90s, I always got the impression that Vancouver would have been a big tourist city by Canadian standards. I mean there's Whistler, there's Vancouver as gateway to the Asian-Pacific region (which makes up a huge portion of the world's populace) with Asian tourists etc. Also, I'd hear stuff in the 90s like how of the three big cities that Canada's known for to outsiders -- Van and Montreal has more "touristy" things than TO -- Vancouver's got mountains, and winter sports and nature etc. and Montreal's (and points east like Quebec city etc.) has got the culture and history, while TO is stuck in between.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Stanley Park is pretty natural if you compare it to places like Central Park, Hyde Park, or even Toronto Island (maybe not a great example).

NYC's Central Park, right? Yup, what I'm trying to say is that the ones listed above are more like lawns with trees - Stanley, Central in Burnaby and Pacific Spirit are actual millennia-old forests. That's something unique and worth keeping.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As for Pacific Spirit... I don't know what you could do with that place that will change anything. The location isn't conducive to tourism. Tourists might visit the Anthropology museum at UBC, and Wreck Beach...

... Move the zoo in from Aldergrove to the golf course? If anyone's got a less stupid idea, go for it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

NYC's Central Park, right? Yup, what I'm trying to say is that the ones listed above are more like lawns with trees - Stanley, Central in Burnaby and Pacific Spirit are actual millennia-old forests. That's something unique and worth keeping.

I entirely agree about keeping the parks pretty much as they are, but Stanley Park is far from a millennia-old forest. With the exception of literally a handful of older trees, everything was cut down through the later part of the 19th Century. You can still see the stumps in some places, often feet across, with the notches for the springboards used by the tree fellers.

Like New York's Central Park it has meadows and formal gardens (and also the Aquarium, and soon, a brewery), but unlike most parks, including New York, it wasn't really designed by anybody, but rather evolved over time, with different elements added and removed over the years (like the petting zoo). And of course it changed a lot in 2006, when the storm removed 10,000 trees (six years after the huge outcry over losing 35 trees for the widened causeway).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by svlt

Stanley Park is heavily urbanized and has plenty of tourism amenities in it already, definitely not a representation of Super Natural BC (plenty of North Shore activities fit better). Pacific Spirit could use a little bit of extra care and maintenance but there is something nice about having what is almost a straight up forest in the city's backyard.

That's why Stanley Park attracts the tourists and not the UBC Endowment Lands.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Hmm... growing up as a Torontonian in the 90s, I always got the impression that Vancouver would have been a big tourist city by Canadian standards. I mean there's Whistler, there's Vancouver as gateway to the Asian-Pacific region (which makes up a huge portion of the world's populace) with Asian tourists etc. Also, I'd hear stuff in the 90s like how of the three big cities that Canada's known for to outsiders -- Van and Montreal has more "touristy" things than TO -- Vancouver's got mountains, and winter sports and nature etc. and Montreal's (and points east like Quebec city etc.) has got the culture and history, while TO is stuck in between.

It is true back in the 90s, but Toronto has caught up and exceeded what Vancouver as a city has to offer today. Ripley's downtown aquarium, the numerous world-class museums like ROM, including their renovations and expansions, heritage buildings and many other shopping/urban amenities have certainly made Toronto a fun city for tourists compared to what the city was in the 90s. Vancouver as a city is way too reliant on its surrounding nature and has become complacent and not investing in improving its tourist amenities. Our museums and many destinations for tourists are getting rather worn and tired-looking. Even neighbouring Seattle has built better amenities like cruise ship terminal to attract more ships and tourists there, and improving on cultural assets like adding the Rock-and-Roll museum, etc.

These days, there isn't much for tourists to see in the city of Vancouver. In the 90s, at least there was an urban zoo in Stanley Park (Polar bears, beavers, arctic wolves, etc.), a number of revolving restaurants with views, a much vibrant Robson Street, Chinatown and Gastown, etc. Same goes for Victoria. I remember there used to be way more museums and attractions at the provincial capital. Both cities have certainly gone downhill since then. Another thing I want to add is that the City of Vancouver can never maintain and clean the downtown area properly: tourists must be appalled when seeing some parts of the city. All those little pet projects like sprucing up a couple of alleyways are certainly frivolous improvements.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Can you imagine how dead an amusement park would be in our rainy winter? Pattison should be thankful circumstances saved him from that mistake.

Great Wolf Lodge was indoors... And yes, we need to get on that Playland expansion soon.

[misher]

I really hope they add a Ferris wheel to that Granville bridge green corridor idea!