Impact of Olympic exposure on Vancouver - Page 5

Yume-sama · #81 Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 8:46 PM**

Well, I wasn't really talking about real estate prices. In fact, if you had read my first post I said I suspect prices will drop somewhat.

There are other ways to have a "boom", I think we could see more people moving here, more tourists, more buildings, hopefully more office towers, more public amenities, etc.

In my mind there is no doubt that the Olympics will be a positive for this city, if they go off without any major problems that taint the cities image... like, I donno, the 1996 Atlanta Bombing.

Rusty Gull · #82 Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 9:49 PM**

Yes, Salt Lake is a good example. No real estate boom, but it went from being considered a "small" US city -- ala Des Moines, Iowa or Rochester, NY -- to being on the same level as a Denver or Kansas City.

wrenegade · #83 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 1:58 AM**

My bet is there will be a brief post-Olympic hangover. It won't hit us until about 6 months after the games end, and will probably only last 6-9 months, but it will be there. We will see things pick up after that (as far as the real estate market goes) but that is kinda a foregone conclusion in this town. We are limited by water, mountains, the US border and the ALR, in the long run prices only have one way to go. Up.

Yume-sama · #84 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 2:14 AM**

Yes, summer 2010 could be a very good Summer for Vancouver. I'd be shocked if tourism isn't way up

Vancity · #85 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Yes, summer 2010 could be a very good Summer for Vancouver. I'd be shocked if tourism isn't way up

I'm looking forward to all the people coming to town!

Yume-sama · #86 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:06 AM**

Mmmhmm, and coincidentally sometime in March the celebration of light will threaten to disappear again, I'm sure

Life will go on as usual!

delboy · #87 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

Yes, Salt Lake is a good example. No real estate boom, but it went from being considered a "small" US city -- ala Des Moines, Iowa or Rochester, NY -- to being on the same level as a Denver or Kansas City.

I think that's sort of what will happen to vancouver on the world stage. We will be noticed. Not only the infrastructure spending will provide a solid platform for future growth. We have the Convention Centre, more hotels, RAV line, better highway to Whistler and all the other venue sites.

Time will tell. I sure hope it goes well.

GeeCee · #88 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Mmmhmm, and coincidentally sometime in March the celebration of light will threaten to disappear again, I'm sure

Life will go on as usual!

I think The Keg agreed to sponsor it for 2010 as well.. paging Mr. X to clarify.

Yume-sama · #89 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by delboy

I think that's sort of what will happen to vancouver on the world stage. We will be noticed. Not only the infrastructure spending will provide a solid platform for future growth. We have the Convention Centre, more hotels, RAV line, better highway to Whistler and all the other venue sites.

Time will tell. I sure hope it goes well.

The Canada Line is reason enough to enjoy the Olympics, for me! Seriously. Plus it's made Richmond available to me, but that's not as exciting

I don't know how so many major cities, such as Toronto, can get by without a train to the airport. It's so damn convenient!!

agrant · #90 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 4:21 AM**

A taxi can be convenient in its own way. If I take the Canada Line, I have to transfer to a bus or haul my luggage from Cambie to Arbutus.

And it is not often that I use the airport, so using a taxi that one time every year or two isn't a big dent in my savings. I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat.

Vancity · #91 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by delboy

I think that's sort of what will happen to vancouver on the world stage. We will be noticed. Not only the infrastructure spending will provide a solid platform for future growth. We have the Convention Centre, more hotels, RAV line, better highway to Whistler and all the other venue sites.

Time will tell. I sure hope it goes well.

But isn't Vancouver already "noticed" on a global stage? What will the city do with that kind of extra exposure? I mean, Vancouver's already known for its beauty (ie the mountains, the water, the outdoors, etc) - other than that, I don't think it's known for much else. I could be wrong, and if I am, please correct.

Will this extra exposure (b/c of the Olympics) bring us more businesses to the city? Will more people come to Vancouver to live, work, and play?

raggedy13 · #92 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vancity

But isn't Vancouver already "noticed" on a global stage? What will the city do with that kind of extra exposure? I mean, Vancouver's already known for its beauty (ie the mountains, the water, the outdoors, etc) - other than that, I don't think it's known for much else. I could be wrong, and if I am, please correct.

I think you kind of answered your own question. For one, the extra exposure will help to showcase other aspects of the city aside from just the natural environment. Additionally, I don't think Vancouver is really that well known internationally. People might know of it, but they don't really know anything about it (I think this is how the world sees Canada in general). Collectively, if we play our cards right we can showcase that Vancouver is a city with great potential (modern, multicultural, highly skilled worker pool, excellent educational institutions, progressive, abundant natural resources, well-situated geographically, economically stable, etc.) and therefore a great place to invest.

vansky · #93 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:35 AM**

seriously, I think the city will be something in 20 years.

SpongeG · #94 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:43 AM**

how many people have gone to another city for an olympic type event and said I am going to move my business here? just curious

raggedy13 · #95 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:58 AM**

^Not sure myself, but I can at least guarantee that people won't move a business to a city they don't know exists. Just saying...

Personally, I don't expect Vancouver to attract any international HQs but if it can attract large satellite offices of companies like Microsoft and Pixar before the Olympics, the additional global exposure after the fact certainly won't hurt it when it comes to attracting other companies. That aside, there are a hundred other ways people/companies can invest in the city than directly moving their entire business to it.

whatnext · #96 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 6:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

how many people have gone to another city for an olympic type event and said I am going to move my business here? just curious

How many people have ever been to Nagano, or Lillehammer?

Yume-sama · #97 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

How many people have ever been to Nagano, or Lillehammer?

I've been to Nagano, but there really isn't much point. And Lilehammer, with just 25,000 residents, isn't up there on the must visit list, either.

There is literally nothing going on in either of these places.

Nagano is pretty much Tokyo's Whistler (only on a much larger scale), though they also have Hakone!

Sapporo, though, is a wonderful city that is still quite proud of their 1972 Olympic heritage. I went on a tour of their ski jump facility and etc.

junius · #98 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 3:52 PM**

I am not sure what prompted the article below but Marketing Guru Seth Godin has a generic opinion about the Olympics he posted on his blog a few days ago.

Here it is:

"For many organizations and individuals, attention is the most precious resource. The pursuit of attention for our ads, or our city or our careers dominates all else.

How else to explain the silly math that is used to justify Olympic hoopla? Can imagine how little patience people would have for the IOC and their internal politics if they didn't have a show that so many people wanted to watch?

Almost every city that has hosted an Olympics regrets it financially. The TV networks spend billions. The advertisers pay for it. The hoopla is vast and loud.

For what?

For the attention. It's the attention that gets cities to put up with the ridiculous system for choosing host cities and gets the TV networks to ship camera crews half way around the world. It's the attention that turns the Olympic committee into vigilant trademark and copyright police. It's easy to cut countries or companies willing to bankrupt themselves for pride or attention a little slack. After all, the Olympics is a magical event.

Except it's not. The same craving for attention happens every day in every organization in search of just one more pair of eyeballs. As marketers discover that more eyeballs does not equal better, the quixotic quest for attention will start to abate.

The formula is simple but depressing: marketers have been lousy at harvesting attention because there was just so much of it. So it was more like strip mining than careful, efficient use of a natural resource. Now that attention is harder to get, people are overpaying for it and the Olympics is just one example. The alternative is to create focused, intense networks that ignore the masses. For most marketers, that's exactly what we need."

Essentially he thinks that the exposure does not equate to long term realtionships.

trofirhen · #99 Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by raggedy13

I think you kind of answered your own question. For one, the extra exposure will help to showcase other aspects of the city aside from just the natural environment. Additionally, I don't think Vancouver is really that well known internationally. People might know of it, but they don't really know anything about it (I think this is how the world sees Canada in general). Collectively, if we play our cards right we can showcase that Vancouver is a city with great potential (modern, multicultural, highly skilled worker pool, excellent educational institutions, progressive, abundant natural resources, well-situated geographically, economically stable, etc.) and therefore a great place to invest.

Let's hope it snags a few more head offices, and a few more air route destinations. Otherwise stated, let's hope this isn't a "flash in the pan" but something that will work out to Vancouver's clout and benefit in the long term. It's what most Vancouverites want, and what the city needs to stay on the international map.

mrjauk · #**100** Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Let's hope it snags a few more head offices, and a few more air route destinations. Otherwise stated, let's hope this isn't a "flash in the pan" but something that will work out to Vancouver's clout and benefit in the long term. It's what most Vancouverites want, and what the city needs to stay on the international map.

So you've got somebody whose job is to constantly be on the search for better opportunities and locales for their business. Let's call her/him "Director of Expansion". So you're saying that this person is sitting at his desk one day and sees something about a sporting event occurring in Vancouver, and says to himself "where is that?, let's have a look. It could be a place to put a branch office."

Any "Director of Expansion" worth his salary has long ago found out about, and considered Vancouver as a potential expansion destination. I honestly don't see how the Olympics will raise Vancouver's exposure in the eyes of these people, and others with the power and money to make similar decisions.