LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Stevenson

Agreed and I still don't get how these attractions will attract tourists. Tourists will be attracted by the stuff we already have. I don't go to a city to go to a sky-diving simulator.

I'm not even sure how this sky-diving simulator got into their list. It can be built in pretty much any existing mall in a few months.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do people want overpriced one-time single-purpose big-box attractions like car museum or aquarium there? Is it inferiority complex?
Even cinema would be better IMO. Where is the closest one? Lansdowne?
Planetarium + IMAX combo would be great too.

That’s a very interesting question, zzptichka. It tells something about your view of the world and others in it.

Why would anyone want alternative ‘attractions’. Who would be interested in going to any other ‘attractions’? Well, maybe a cinema might be OK. (I put the word 'attractions' in single quotes because you, and some others, obviously don't find these things attractive.)

So, would that movie house have multiple screens? Why?

Why would we add a library to the area? Why would we add anything but books in that library? Why, in deed, have anything more than one book in a library. Of course, that book would need to appeal to you. And all films shown at the theater would need to appeal to you.

This might come as a shock to you – so I hope that you are sitting down: There are other people in the world and they might like things that you are not interested in. I’ll give you a few seconds so that you can process that concept.
.
.
.
I have, in fact, made a special trip to Laval for the Skyventure indoor ‘skydiving’ – and the family wants to go back. It appeared to be a busy place, as I understand that most of the ones scattered though the U.S. are. Having such an attraction in Ottawa should also be popular with people here – although you might not be able to understand why.

You apparently also have no interaction with children who have grown up with Teletubbies and learning the word “AGAIN!”. I can’t tell you how many times I have taken kids to the Canadian Museum of History to go to the Children’s Museum. Or to the Science and Tech museum to see the trains, or the ‘data packet routing climbing thing’, or, of course, the Crazy Kitchen. Or to the Museum of Nature to see the dinosaurs, or rocks, or ‘animals’.

And, Stevenson, having more ‘attractions’ does make a destination more desirable for most tourists; although you might be an exception.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are planning to travel outside of your own little world for a 5-day vacation. Would you rather go to a place that has one old church; or a place that has 10 old churches and a number of ‘avant-garde’ buildings, 4 large museums of various topics, a vibrant night-spot/bar area, and safe bike paths throughout the area? I know which option I (and I think most people) would choose.

Once you had gone to the one-church town for your vacation, I expect that you would want to go back there every year. The other choice of locations might have added another museum, two new ‘starchitect’ buildings, an aquarium, and a Formula 1 race track, but that would not sway you from going back to see the old church.

[Stevenson]

No need to be condescending. At the end of the day people will come to Ottawa to see the Parliament buildings, museums, and they will come to see events/games at the arena or other places such as the NAC. The other stuff is just filler.

I agree a skydiving simulator would be cool for the people who actually live here, I just don't see it as being a tourist draw, and I don't see a brewseum or the other stuff as being tourist draws. I think the arena will be the biggest tourist draw. Sports and historic sites are probably the biggest draws for any big city in North America.

For me, I go to a city to see the historic sites, monuments, and sports. That's it for me. I do agree an aquarium is a tourist draw but I don't think it's the right fit for Ottawa. We have little to do with fish and sea creatures.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Stevenson

No need to be condescending. At the end of the day people will come to Ottawa to see the Parliament buildings, museums, and they will come to see events/games at the arena or other places such as the NAC. The other stuff is just filler.

I agree a skydiving simulator would be cool for the people who actually live here, I just don't see it as being a tourist draw, and I don't see a brewseum or the other stuff as being tourist draws. I think the arena will be the biggest tourist draw. Sports and historic sites are probably the biggest draws for any big city in North America.

For me, I go to a city to see the historic sites, monuments, and sports. That's it for me. I do agree an aquarium is a tourist draw but I don't think it's the right fit for Ottawa. We have little to do with fish and sea creatures.

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

What does need to happen is that as it is Ottawa isn't really a tourist city. Ottawa is a pitstop for people visiting Toronto and Montreal, and perhaps QC. And really there isn't anything here to warrant anything but a pitstop. You go see the parliament buildings and monuments, take pictures, and you're done in under 2 hours. There are cool things, like the Diefenbunker and history museums, but the rest are really generic. Science and nature museums are found everywhere and are thus solely for locals. The Canadensis walk, auto expo, aquarium would get people to stay longer and they'd be placed in a convenient location.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

People from nearby small cities (Pembroke, Cornwall, Kingston, etc) usually travel to one of Ottawa or Toronto or Montreal for these sorts of events, and they usually prefer Ottawa if they can because it's easier to get here.

People here in Kingston love it when concerts go to Ottawa as well as Montreal/Toronto. Give most people in Kingston the choice they'd rather make the drive up to Ottawa over the other two.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

What does need to happen is that as it is Ottawa isn't really a tourist city. Ottawa is a pitstop for people visiting Toronto and Montreal, and perhaps QC. And really there isn't anything here to warrant anything but a pitstop. You go see the parliament buildings and monuments, take pictures, and you're done in under 2 hours. There are cool things, like the Diefenbunker and history museums, but the rest are really generic. Science and nature museums are found everywhere and are thus solely for locals. The Canadensis walk, auto expo, aquarium would get people to stay longer and they'd be placed in a convenient location.

I disagree with basically everything you wrote here.

There are large numbers of people who travel for sporting events like NHL games, and added to those are people who are in town for other reasons will extend their stay to see a Sens game or other event. And that doesn't even include the people described earlier in this thread that come shorter distances on a more regular basis to see the team. All of these people contribute to the local economy. As do people who come for one off events like the World Juniors, the Junos etc. that do not have equivalents in other cities. As a recent example, I believe that it was north of 50% of attendees for the Women's World Cup that came from out of town.

Being the capital of the country, Ottawa has huge advantages as a tourist city. It is the kind of place that most Canadians want to see at least once, and its a huge destination for school trips. As someone who grew up in Southwestern Ontario, I can tell you that Ottawa was a regular destination for people I grew up with.

Unless you are on a seniors' bus tour - see all of Eastern Canada in 4 days! - you would easily spend three or four days here just seeing the standard attractions like Parliament, the Supreme Court, the gallery, the museums etc. I don't disagree that some other types of attractions to supplement what we have is a good idea, but the notion that Ottawa has nothing to offer without an aquarium and a skydiving tube is untrue.

[ars]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

That’s a very interesting question, zzptichka. It tells something about your view of the world and others in it.

Why would anyone want alternative ‘attractions’. Who would be interested in going to any other ‘attractions’? Well, maybe a cinema might be OK. (I put the word 'attractions' in single quotes because you, and some others, obviously don't find these things attractive.)

So, would that movie house have multiple screens? Why?

Why would we add a library to the area? Why would we add anything but books in that library? Why, in deed, have anything more than one book in a library. Of course, that book would need to appeal to you. And all films shown at the theater would need to appeal to you.

This might come as a shock to you – so I hope that you are sitting down: There are other people in the world and they might like things that you are not interested in. I’ll give you a few seconds so that you can process that concept.
.
.
.
I have, in fact, made a special trip to Laval for the Skyventure indoor ‘skydiving’ – and the family wants to go back. It appeared to be a busy place, as I understand that most of the ones scattered though the U.S. are. Having such an attraction in Ottawa should also be popular with people here – although you might not be able to understand why.

You apparently also have no interaction with children who have grown up with Teletubbies and learning the word “AGAIN!”. I can’t tell you how many times I have taken kids to the Canadian Museum of History to go to the Children’s Museum. Or to the Science and Tech museum to see the trains, or the ‘data packet routing climbing thing’, or, of course, the Crazy Kitchen. Or to the Museum of Nature to see the dinosaurs, or rocks, or ‘animals’.

And, Stevenson, having more ‘attractions’ does make a destination more desirable for most tourists; although you might be an exception.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are planning to travel outside of your own little world for a 5-day vacation. Would you rather go to a place that has one old church; or a place that has 10 old churches and a number of ‘avant-garde’ buildings, 4 large museums of various topics, a vibrant night-spot/bar area, and safe bike paths throughout the area? I know which option I (and I think most people) would choose.

Once you had gone to the one-church town for your vacation, I expect that you would want to go back there every year. The other choice of locations might have added another museum, two new ‘starchitect’ buildings, an aquarium, and a Formula 1 race track, but that would not sway you from going back to see the old church.

Just to play devil's advocate, is there any specific reason why any of those attractions, that Devcore has proposed, need to be at Lebreton?

There's a very compelling reason to have an NHL arena and a central library(no matter who builds it) in that location, but why could an indoor skydiving attraction not be placed somewhere else in the city? Or the skate park? Or the brewseum/car museum? We already have the war museum right there, seems like a Beer museum and car museum might be museum overkill for one location.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

What does need to happen is that as it is Ottawa isn't really a tourist city. Ottawa is a pitstop for people visiting Toronto and Montreal, and perhaps QC. And really there isn't anything here to warrant anything but a pitstop. You go see the parliament buildings and monuments, take pictures, and you're done in under 2 hours. There are cool things, like the Diefenbunker and history museums, but the rest are really generic. Science and nature museums are found everywhere and are thus solely for locals. The Canadensis walk, auto expo, aquarium would get people to stay longer and they'd be placed in a convenient location.

I disagree with this. Sports tourism is fairly popular. The company I work at is a large multi-national company where we get lots of business visitors from all over the world. After the parliament buildings, the one thing visitors always want to experience during their time here is a Sens game.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

What does need to happen is that as it is Ottawa isn't really a tourist city. Ottawa is a pitstop for people visiting Toronto and Montreal, and perhaps QC. And really there isn't anything here to warrant anything but a pitstop. You go see the parliament buildings and monuments, take pictures, and you're done in under 2 hours. There are cool things, like the Diefenbunker and history museums, but the rest are really generic. Science and nature museums are found everywhere and are thus solely for locals. The Canadensis walk, auto expo, aquarium would get people to stay longer and they'd be placed in a convenient location.

Have you ever been on the 403 on the weekend? It's packed with out of town visitors going to hockey, concerts, etc. While maybe not tourists per se they spend a lot of money here while they're in town for hockey. Ottawa is appealing to out of town visitors because of much cheaper prices and more availability (Leafs are in last place and still sell out most nights). But currently we make these visitors spend 90 minutes on the 403 spending $6 on bus fare instead of spending money in restaurants, bars, etc.

I think you're right that the science and nature museums (which every city has) are less interesting to tourists than some of the history museums which are unique to Ottawa. But for the same reasons, why would tourists want to visit Ottawa for the devcore attractions? They have a smaller version of the Toronto aquarium, two branches of the S&T Museum, some sort permanent auto show, some landscaping they're calling a botanical garden and some generic rides that most cities have. If you're a visitor from Toronto what can you see at Imaginationland that you can't see in Toronto (or just about any city in North America)?

[Stevenson]

I echo the posts above saying sports and events are huge draws. I would also like to add to that the this world class arena would get us events such as potential World Cup hockey games, NHL all-star games, maybe even more Raptors preseason games, other events such as skating championships, etc.

[lrt's friend]

Just to play devil's advocate, is there any specific reason why any of those attractions, that Devcore has proposed, need to be at Lebreton?

There's a very compelling reason to have an NHL arena and a central library(no matter who builds it) in that location, but why could an indoor skydiving attraction not be placed somewhere else in the city? Or the skate park? Or the brewseum/car museum? We already have the war museum right there, seems like a Beer museum and car museum might be museum overkill for one location.

Why not? I can tell you why. It is last available large tract of land near downtown, which is close to centre of Ottawa's tourist trade. You are certainly are not going to put an Aquarium in Orleans.

As it stands, the War Museum is very isolated. That alone is a very compelling reason to have other attractions nearby. It is exactly the same reason why car dealers, and furniture stores tend to locate close together. You are making it convenient for tourists, or car buyers or furniture buyers, all of whom tend to want to go to more than one place.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Because attractions like this are good for tourism.

Someone mentioned it earlier and it was a very good point. The more "stuff" there is to do (outside of the core reasons for visiting) the longer people might stay. Four days instead of three, three instead of two, etc; the longer they stay the more they spend on hotels, restaurants, activities, shopping, and other things. Ottawa's tourism section is quite healthy from what I know, but it's never a bad thing to make sensible additions.

I prefer the Sens' proposal overall but I find it lacks in those aforementioned attractions. An aquarium, National botanical garden, skydiving facility, etc., are all valid things that tourists could and would gobble up.

If we are expecting a national botanical garden, you are going to be sadly disappointed. This is going to a walkway with some nice plantings at best. If we want a National Botanical Gardens, you will need most or all the site. A bad choice obviously. We have attempted that on an underutilized part of the Experimental Farm and the Glebe fanatics freaked out calling it Disneyland. How absurd! A National botanical gardens, needs space, and needs to be fenced off with paid admission, in order to fund improvements and to protect the site from vandalism and theft. The Montreal Botanical Gardens is wonderful facility that attracts repeat visitors, both local and from outside the city. I have been there many times and I would go more often if it weren't for the 2 hour drive.

[OTSkyline]

I don't like the argument of people saying the DEVCOR proposal is lame because "well, an aquarium, brewseum, car museum, iFly... everybody has them". Well, guess what, a lot of other cities have them but we don't! For all those saying this over and over again I ask you; what kind of attraction(s) could be proposed for the site then that WOULD be a big tourist and $ draw AND be totally unique to Ottawa that no other city has?

People complain that "Oh, other than the arena I would only visit the DEVCOR attractions once." Well guess what, that would be once more than if RV wins and builds their proposal as-is (again other than the arena since it's a part of both proposals). What are you going to go visit there, condos and restaurants? Do Parisians visit the Louvre every week? Do New-Yorkers visit Time Square every weekend? Do Torontonians climb the CN Tower every month? Do Montrealers visit the Biodome every year? No... Yet these attractions are wildly popular and bring lots of visitors and money to cities. I agree most tourists will still come to Ottawa because it is the capital and to see the Parliament buildings but this would just add to the list of attractions/things to do in the area and build more excitement and fun in the Capital.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I don't think anyone would come to Ottawa for the arena. Whatever shows we get Toronto and Montreal will also have them and why come from out of town to see a sens game. The arena is solely for the locals and will do nothing to beef our tourist industry.

What does need to happen is that as it is Ottawa isn't really a tourist city. Ottawa is a pitstop for people visiting Toronto and Montreal, and perhaps QC. And really there isn't anything here to warrant anything but a pitstop. You go see the parliament buildings and monuments, take pictures, and you're done in under 2 hours. There are cool things, like the Diefenbunker and history museums, but the rest are really generic. Science and nature museums are found everywhere and are thus solely for locals. The Canadensis walk, auto expo, aquarium would get people to stay longer and they'd be placed in a convenient location.

You have a valid point to raise in your last sentence but you discredit yourself badly by wrapping it in so much other nonsense. Needless to say I also strongly disagree (so do the facts) with everything you wrote, except the last sentence (in concept). Phil's post sums up my thoughts nicely.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we are expecting a national botanical garden, you are going to be sadly disappointed

You're probably right. I was speaking more conceptually rather than about the viability of specific attractions. That particular one is probably a bad example to use for this site.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Do Parisians visit the Louvre every week? Do New-Yorkers visit Time Square every weekend? Do Torontonians climb the CN Tower every month? Do Montrealers visit the Biodome every year? No... Yet these attractions are wildly popular and bring lots of visitors and money to cities.

Those are category killers that are among the top of their type of attraction in the world. Neither Devcore nor Sens, nor anyone else are proposing anything like that, and without a lot of public money or a major philanthropist we're not going to get anything like that.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I don't like the argument of people saying the DEVCOR proposal is lame because "well, an aquarium, brewseum, car museum, iFly... everybody has them". Well, guess what, a lot of other cities have them but we don't! For all those saying this over and over again I ask you; what kind of attraction(s) could be proposed for the site then that WOULD be a big tourist and $ draw AND be totally unique to Ottawa that no other city has?

People complain that "Oh, other than the arena I would only visit the DEVCOR attractions once." Well guess what, that would be once more than if RV wins and builds their proposal as-is (again other than the arena since it's a part of both proposals). What are you going to go visit there, condos and restaurants? Do Parisians visit the Louvre every week? Do New-Yorkers visit Time Square every weekend? Do Torontonians climb the CN Tower every month? Do Montrealers visit the Biodome every year? No... Yet these attractions are wildly popular and bring lots of visitors and money to cities. I agree most tourists will still come to Ottawa because it is the capital and to see the Parliament buildings but this would just add to the list of attractions/things to do in the area and build more excitement and fun in the Capital.

I think the NCC should do a scientific poll on how people feel about Lansdowne. Especially asking the question: have you visited more than once?
Personally, I think that a lively and attractive place will attract more liveliness. I mean, the Byward Market isn't exactly swimming in museums, it is the destination. Same deal with Lansdowne.
While I would like to see some more public attractions in the RV proposal, I think it actually generates more staying power. It will build a hell of a lot more of a neighbourhood feel than Devcore's current offering, and that leads to more potential for vibrancy all the time.

[lrt's friend]

The problem with Melnyk's proposal is that it mostly supports his arena. I can understand why, since he is looking for more revenue flows for his business. I don't object to that in itself, but arenas are mostly in use at night and with its primary tenant being a winter event, often in winter. So what about during daytime and in the summer?
There needs to be reasons to go there all the time and as I pointed out, we can't leave the war museum as an isolated 'daytime' attraction. And no, it is not compatible with a library (a totally different audience), which really isn't part of the Melnyk proposal, being on adjacent land. We may have a beautiful plaza in front of the arena but when will it be used? During the playoffs when the weather is a little better and the playoffs will not happen every year. So when will we use that facility at other times? There needs to be reasons. I doubt that we will be celebrating Canada Day there. Why would we?

Whatever we end up with, it has to beef up the tourist trade. One thing we forget is that the 'summer' tourist trade is important to our hotel industry since this is when the convention season is at a low ebb. So, we need things that attract summer tourists. We need things that attract people during the daytime and in the evening. We need to attract local people. We need to have people live there. The more we achieve a balance of all of that, the more successful it will. And I would say, the more 'exciting' things it offers, the more the area will get a kick start. Let's face it, with the exception of the War Museum, there has been no reason to go to Lebreton Flats in the last 50 years. It is going to take a lot to change our behaviour. There has to be 'we have to go when it opens' and there needs to be enough to bring us back again and again.

And if we want a lively restaurant and entertainment trade in the area, an arena is not enough. Arenas are dead zones when not in use.

This has to be more than Lansdowne Plus and I was a big supporter of the Lansdowne redevelopment. Lansdowne had an advantage being between upscale Glebe and Ottawa South with an already successful retail trade.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by phil235

I disagree with basically everything you wrote here.

There are large numbers of people who travel for sporting events like NHL games, and added to those are people who are in town for other reasons will extend their stay to see a Sens game or other event. And that doesn't even include the people described earlier in this thread that come shorter distances on a more regular basis to see the team. All of these people contribute to the local economy. As do people who come for one off events like the World Juniors, the Junos etc. that do not have equivalents in other cities. As a recent example, I believe that it was north of 50% of attendees for the Women's World Cup that came from out of town.

Being the capital of the country, Ottawa has huge advantages as a tourist city. It is the kind of place that most Canadians want to see at least once, and its a huge destination for school trips. As someone who grew up in Southwestern Ontario, I can tell you that Ottawa was a regular destination for people I grew up with.

Unless you are on a seniors' bus tour - see all of Eastern Canada in 4 days! - you would easily spend three or four days here just seeing the standard attractions like Parliament, the Supreme Court, the gallery, the museums etc. I don't disagree that some other types of attractions to supplement what we have is a good idea, but the notion that Ottawa has nothing to offer without an aquarium and a skydiving tube is untrue.

All good points, but I think what you missed, and what the people supporting the Devcore plan are trying to say is that the Devcore plan would help increase tourism in Ottawa, make people stay a day longer to check out one more museum, skydive, or visit the aquarium. Whereas the RV plan, with the main attraction being the arena, will NOT increase tourism in Ottawa. The sports tourists who are already travelling to attend games will continue to do so, basically, it will be status quo.

As for the standard attractions like the parliament, supreme court, gallery and museums, lets get real here. You were a kid before, or maybe you have kids. While some kids might be fully satisfied with historical stuff like parliament, supreme court and maybe 1-2 museums, MOST kids want something exciting mixed in and will coax the parents to go to an aquarium, to go see a car museum, skydiving, etc. RV doesn't have that.

You have to look at the full spectrum of tourists, all demographics, from everywhere. Not just the Torontonians, Montrealers who drive here for a weekend. But the Americans who come up here, or Europeans, Asians etc.

Overall, when it comes to tourism for all over in all demographics, RV proposal will result in the status quo for Ottawa tourism (arena downtown will not result in more tourists than having the arena in Kanata). But the Devcore proposal will increase tourism (due to all the extra attractions). Its just logic.

[Boxster]

I believe they could easily have guided tours of the arena in the off season or during day time...just like they have with the Olympic Stadium in Montreal!

What a great idea. Wonder if Melnyk ever thought about that one.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Radster

All good points, but I think what you missed, and what the people supporting the Devcore plan are trying to say is that the Devcore plan would help increase tourism in Ottawa, make people stay a day longer to check out one more museum, skydive, or visit the aquarium. Whereas the RV plan, with the main attraction being the arena, will NOT increase tourism in Ottawa. The sports tourists who are already travelling to attend games will continue to do so, basically, it will be status quo.

As for the standard attractions like the parliament, supreme court, gallery and museums, lets get real here. You were a kid before, or maybe you have kids. While some kids might be fully satisfied with historical stuff like parliament, supreme court and maybe 1-2 museums, MOST kids want something exciting mixed in and will coax the parents to go to an aquarium, to go see a car museum, skydiving, etc. RV doesn't have that.

You have to look at the full spectrum of tourists, all demographics, from everywhere. Not just the Torontonians, Montrealers who drive here for a weekend. But the Americans who come up here, or Europeans, Asians etc.
Overall, when it comes to tourism for all over in all demographics, RV proposal will result in the status quo for Ottawa tourism (arena downtown will not result in more tourists than having the arena in Kanata). But the Devcore proposal will increase tourism (due to all the extra attractions). Its just logic.

You have no idea how invisible we are outside of Canada. Most Americans don't even know we are the capital of Canada. We need to give people more reasons to visit and then allow word of mouth spread of what a great this city is. And yes, we already have a lot going for us, but delivering a more diverse range of attractions will give the city a more exciting image. Where do Asians go? Vancouver, Banff, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Prince Edward Island. Where do Europeans go? Toronto and Montreal and Banff. Where do Americans go? Most everywhere except Ottawa. I have spoken to people who did a trip between Montreal and Toronto and didn't bother with Ottawa, not knowing our significance and figuring there was nothing to see. And when comparing ourselves with smaller Quebec City and Niagara Falls, our tourist trade is really suffering. No international image. Maybe we need some crazy building of outstanding architecture.

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You have no idea how invisible we are outside of Canada. Most Americans don't even know we are the capital of Canada. We need to give people more reasons to visit and then allow word of mouth spread of what a great this city is. And yes, we already have a lot going for us, but delivering a more diverse range of attractions will give the city a more exciting image. Where do Asians go? Vancouver, Banff, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Prince Edward Island. Where do Europeans go? Toronto and Montreal and Banff. Where do Americans go? Most everywhere except Ottawa. I have spoken to people who did a trip between Montreal and Toronto and didn't bother with Ottawa, not knowing our significance and figuring there was nothing to see. And when comparing ourselves with smaller Quebec City and Niagara Falls, our tourist trade is really suffering.

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Niagara Falls, Calgary and Quebec are more popular in terms of international visitors. Ottawa is in seventh place at best.