Impact of Olympic exposure on Vancouver

[SpongeG]

global news story about what happenned in salt lake city after they hosted

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=B_PpI_e_d8j6YR2J2nlBWRzu7MIu2xH4

[vansky]

not sure about the outside views, but the olympics will change hwo vancouverites view the city itself...since it "never" hosted one...seems like it's such a big thing...

it's like that day when canada line opened...man, i was there too...part of the crowd that got too excited for such a small thing...

[trofirhen]

If Salt Lake City has experienced a sustained increase in tourism, chances are Vancouver might, too.

As such, there might be a couple of new routes opening up at YVR, and may a new airline or two thrown in.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

global news story about what happenned in salt lake city after they hosted

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=B_PpI_e_d8j6YR2J2nlBWRzu7MIu2xH4

? The link goes to a clip on the traffic chaos being closed by road closures.

[SpongeG]

the global links never work but all the stories are there just find it below I guess it was on the late news hour on friday night it will be with that package

[raggedy13]

That Salt Lake City vid was fairly reassuring. Thanks, SpongeG.

However, one could perhaps make the argument that Salt Lake City's tourism has seen a sustained increase because it was a small and underdeveloped market to begin with, with plenty of room for expansion, while perhaps Vancouver won't see the same sorts of increases because it is already a larger, more mature tourism market.

But personally I think if Salt Lake City could reap long-term tourism benefits, so could Vancouver, especially now with our approved destination status from China.

[Yume-sama]

The Olympics in Salt Lake really did not make me want to go to Salt Lake. I mean, when it's not Winter, and you can't go skiing, what do you do there other than go to church?

Visitors, and viewers, will see Vancouver as a metropolitan city that they can enjoy year round.

They will see that you can go to Whistler, play in the snow, and come back to Vancouver and have dinner on a patio in mild temperatures.

The Summer Olympics are more successful in showcasing a real city, in my mind. Because they are usually in major cities. They have made me want to visit Athens, Beijing, etc.

Heck they could even change my mind about Rio, from gang infested murderous city, to, hmm, maybe I'll visit but not bring anything worth more than $40

Vancouver is the first "big" city to host the Winter Olympics. I imagine, they'll have a similar effect on people.

[flight_from_kamakura]

well, "the first big city"... calgary is about 150k larger population-wise, and torino has about 300k on vancouver, but the point is well-taken on the urbanity. and there's where vancouver is looking especially good compared with lillehammer or lake placid or nagano or salt lake - vancouver's olympics exposure will compound a general sort of feeling about the city.

[SpongeG]

utah is an outdoor persons place - it looks really cool lots to see and explore I would love to go see this kind of stuff


legendsofamerica.com


destination360.com

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

well, "the first big city"... calgary is about 150k larger population-wise, and torino has about 300k on vancouver, but the point is well-taken on the urbanity. and there's where vancouver is looking especially good compared with lillehammer or lake placid or nagano or salt lake - vancouver's olympics exposure will compound a general sort of feeling about the city.

Not from Vancouver are ya? It's bigger than Calgary and Edmonton combined.

I'm technically not in Vancouver and I'm closer to downtown than most of actual Vancouver.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Not from Vancouver are ya? It's bigger than Calgary and Edmonton combined.

I'm technically not in Vancouver and I'm closer to downtown than most of actual Vancouver.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ...

From the 2006 census:
"Greater Vancouver" population is 2,116,581
"Vancouver" population is 578,041
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recenseme...RETR&LANG=Eng&T=306&PR=59&S=0&O=A&RPP=25


"Calgary" population is 988,193
"Edmonton" population is 730,372
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recenseme...ng&T=306&SR=1&S=0&O=A&RPP=25&CMA=0&PR=48

"Greater Vancouver" is everything west of & including Langley, from the North Shore mountains to White Rock. Sometimes lumped together as GVRD or "Metro".

City of Vancouver population is less than either City of Calgary or City of Edmonton

"Greater Vancouver" population is larger than City of Calgary and City of Edmonton combined

[Spork]

Population density for the metro area is probably a more accurate comparison.

[Yume-sama]

Calgary didn't always have 1 million people. It was a MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller city in 1988. That was, after-all, 22 years ago now.

The population has doubled, at least, since then. Thus, making Calgary a much smaller city at the time they hosted the games, than Vancouver is now.

It officially reached 1 million people in 2007 (after booming like hell for the better part of a decade), and since then the population has gone up 40,000 per year on average, during a period of economic decline even.

[GeeCee]

Anyone have density numbers? I'd wager that Vancouver is much more dense as compared to either Calgary or Edmonton..

[Yume-sama]

I think that goes without saying.

Metro Calgary
5,107.43 km2

Metro Edmonton
9,417.88 km2

Metro Vancouver
2,878.52 km2

For fun!...

Hong Kong
1,104 km2

The Republic of Singapore
710.2 km2

Tokyo Metropolis
2,187.08 km2

Mexico City
7,854 km2

The entire United Arab Emirates
4,114 km2

[LotusLand]

I think what people are forgetting is the metro population of vancouver is double that of Edmonton and Calgary.

Supporters that Calgary and Edmonton city proper have greater population are correct. But keep in mind Calgary city area is 726.50 km2, Edmonton is 684.37 km2. Meaning they are one big giant sprawling regions where as Vancouver city area is 114.67 km2 and has about 600,000 people in it. Eventually we'll get to 800,000 max but you can't directly compare populations without considering density. Do the Math vancouver is more dense, and more populated if you look at Yume's data above.

This argument is dumb, lets move on shall we

[vansky]

Originally Posted by LotusLand

I think what people are forgetting is the metro population of vancouver is double that of Edmonton and Calgary.

Supporters that Calgary and Edmonton city proper have greater population are correct. But keep in mind Calgary city area is 726.50 km2, Edmonton is 684.37 km2. Meaning they are one big giant sprawling regions where as Vancouver city area is 114.67 km2 and has about 600,000 people in it. Eventually we'll get to 800,000 max but you can't directly compare populations without considering density. Do the Math vancouver is more dense, and more populated if you look at Yume's data above.

This argument is dumb, lets move on shall we

outside of downtown, everywhere's the same...dt to,nyc,van,chicago and san fran are probably the only dts that feel like a big city in n.a...but truely, manhattan's the only one...

anyways, i expect they shoot some downtown and coal harbour,which will make the city look bigger than it actually is...

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I think that goes without saying.

Metro Calgary
5,107.43 km2

Metro Edmonton
9,417.88 km2

Metro Vancouver
2,878.52 km2

For fun!...

Hong Kong
1,104 km2

The Republic of Singapore
710.2 km2

Tokyo Metropolis
2,187.08 km2

Mexico City
7,854 km2

The entire United Arab Emirates
4,114 km2

I assume the 2878 for metro vancouver is based on the fact that you are not including land that is not residential.

Also the density of the City of Vancouver in 2006 census was 5039/km2. That would give it the highest density of any city in Canada with a population of over 21,000.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

That Salt Lake City vid was fairly reassuring. Thanks, SpongeG.

However, one could perhaps make the argument that Salt Lake City's tourism has seen a sustained increase because it was a small and underdeveloped market to begin with, with plenty of room for expansion, while perhaps Vancouver won't see the same sorts of increases because it is already a larger, more mature tourism market.

But personally I think if Salt Lake City could reap long-term tourism benefits, so could Vancouver, especially now with our approved destination status from China.

I didn't watch the clip but are they attributing the increase in tourism in Salt Lake City post-2002 to the Olympics? If so, they're making a common error. The reporters don't understand the fundamental problem of causal inference. Just because SLC's tourism numbers increased post-2002 does not mean that they were caused by the Olympics.

One way of determining this is to compare the % increase in tourists in SLC to the % increase in tourists in other US cities. Remember that there was a US recession in 2001, which ended in 2002, and which was then followed by an historically unprecedented global economic expansion and housing boom caused by an equally historic global credit expansion.

Remember that we can't isolate potential variables like in the physics lab, so any attributions of causality in the area of social science have to be made correctly.

[SpongeG]

well it went from 17 million visitors prior to 2002 to 20 million visitors post 2002 not a huge increase what 4%? or so

i think the point is all olympics do is increase tourism numbers which will help business maybe not in a driect way but we'll take it