Sports in Canadian culture

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

keep in mind that Montréal had no direct flight with China before september 2015. The Chinese are big spenders.

Vancouver is also a significantly bigger air travel hub than Montreal is.

We've already had this discussion on several other threads.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I am not sure why you are having so much difficulty in grasping that the study is about the top ten international destination cities in North America. It purports only to measure the number of international overnight visitors (and the amount of international tourism revenue) that the top North American cities attract annually, not how much "international profile" these cities have. There is nothing controversial about the results of this study, which are in line with the data independently published by the City of Toronto and Tourism Vancouver.

And as I said, Vancouver absolutely dominates Montreal in the number of international overnight visitors (and the amount of international tourism revenue) it attracts annually. Montreal is really not even in the same league as Vancouver when it comes to international tourism. Moreover, not only is that domination nothing new, it is growing. These are the hard cold facts.

Now regarding the issue of what Vancouver's complete domination over Montreal in the number of international overnight visitors and revenue derived therefrom says about the "international profile" of each city is something I leave to others to ponder over. I have made no claims regarding that issue.

I suppose I'm having difficulty grasping what your point is in posting a table of visitor rankings in a discussion about the international profiles of various Canadian cities. All I'm seeing is a whole lot of context-free wanking over Vancouver's supposed "domination" of Montreal when it comes to overnight visitors.

A city's profile is clearly not something that can be objectively verified with numbers. Obviously it makes no sense to say that Cancun has a greater international profile than Vancouver based on how it blows Vancouver out of the water in terms of overnight visitor numbers. It may totally dominate Vancouver for tourism, leaving Vancouver in the dust, such that Vancouver is not in the same league as Cancun, as Cancun gets fully, erm...<clicks on calculator>...33% more overnight visitors than Vancouver, but, you know, what kind of idiot would hold up the overnight visitors of Cancun as objective evidence of Cancun's greater international profile?

I know I wouldn't.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I suppose I'm having difficulty grasping what your point is in posting a table of visitor rankings in a discussion about the international profiles of various Canadian cities. All I'm seeing is a whole lot of context-free wanking over Vancouver's supposed "domination" of Montreal when it comes to overnight visitors.

A city's profile is clearly not something that can be objectively verified with numbers. Obviously it makes no sense to say that Cancun has a greater international profile than Vancouver based on how it blows Vancouver out of the water in terms of overnight visitor numbers. It may totally dominate Vancouver for tourism, leaving Vancouver in the dust, such that Vancouver is not in the same league as Cancun, as Cancun gets fully, erm...<clicks on calculator>...33% more overnight visitors than Vancouver, but, you know, what kind of idiot would hold up the overnight visitors of Cancun as a objective evidence of Cancun's greater international profile?

I know I wouldn't.

I wonder if this Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better thing is common around the world? Do people in some other German city argue until they are blue in the face that their Glockenspiel is every bit as good or better than Munich's, with the stats to prove it?

[mistercorporate]

Its definitely common around the world. Its more common in online forums though.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Guys, it's not an anti-west thing.

If Edmonton had 4-5 million people, was an international crossroads and a national media centre, no one would dispute its suitability to host the WC final.

But if Canada ended up with a bid that had Edmonton to host the final, the questions from abroad would be What about Toronto? What about Montreal? What about Vancouver?

As I said, it's not about the west. It wouldn't go to Ottawa either even if it's the capital. It wouldn't go to Quebec City either even if it's pretty and charming. It wouldn't go to to Hamilton even if it's close to Toronto.

Choosing the city that hosts the WC final is about the stadium of course but it's not just that.

Edmonton is just too small a city in the Canadian context.

Originally Posted by elly63

Yes I know, it was posted in the list. What I was trying to say is why me as a foreigner would care which city they picked. Unless we're not too educated we've heard of most of a country's big cities.

I'm saying I know in New Zealand there's Wellington and Christchurch and Auckland (which I think is the most populated) but what do I care which one would host a final, I've heard of them, and Edmonton has hosted enough big events that people would have heard of it too. And none of that really matters in the scheme of things whether people have heard about it or not.

From my travels aboard, I can assure you not too many people have any idea of the size of Canadian cities and wouldn't be thinking anything in terms of Edmonton hosting the Final as opposed to Calgary or Vancouver or Montreal or Toronto, & if pressed for an answer of why Edmonton, then "those larger cities don't have stadiums large enough" would be easily understood by all..

Besides, this is Skyscraperpage.com.. We all know Edmonton will probably still have second tallest skyline in the country by then anyways so it will look appropriate.

[QUOTE=mistercorporate;7385760]http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06...ld-cup-in-2026

Its sounds like the possible bid for World Cup in Canada isn't even entertaining idea of Olympics stadium use or a new stadium in Toronto. 8 stadiums (5 in the West and 3 in the East) maybe all we need.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

From my travels aboard, I can assure you not too many people have any idea of the size of Canadian cities and wouldn't be thinking anything in terms of Edmonton hosting the Final as opposed to Calgary or Vancouver or Montreal or Toronto, & if pressed for an answer of why Edmonton, then "those larger cities don't have stadiums large enough" would be easily understood by all..

This all just smacks too much of ''me too!'' or ''us too!" for my taste.

Anyway, it won't even get to a point where anyone in the world will have to question a Canadian bid's choice for the city to host the WC final as it will be Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver that will be proposed.

As for the global renown of Canada and its cities, well yeah we're not much on the radar but Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are far above all the others in reputation. Though not necessarily always in that order depending on where you are in the world.

[dreambrother808]

Ottawa has a high recognition factor as well, due to being the capital, in my anecdotal experience.

[dreambrother808]

Here's some fuel for the fire...

Vancouver is the soccer capital of Canada. Period.

I don’t care if the “national soccer stadium” is/was supposed to be in Toronto. The home for both national teams is in Vancouver and this is where they belong.

If there was any doubt about this before, it should be all gone given the support shown in this city for soccer in the last year.

Let’s start with the FIFA Women’s World Cup last June/July.

BC Place drew over 52,000 fans on four occasions, including for USA/Nigeria, Canada/Switzerland, Canada/England, and the Final between USA/Japan.

Perhaps most impressive was the support for the games without partisan appeal.

Over 25,000 watched a pair of games involving Cameroon/Ecuador and Japan/Switzerland in the opening round. Then, over 31,000 watched Switzerland/Ecuador and Japan/Cameroon.

Compare that to Montreal, where they drew 10,175 and 28,623 respectively, for matches involving Spain, Costa Rica, Brazil, and South Korea. Just 24,859 fans showed up to Olympic Stadium for a quarter-final match between Germany and France.

The Vancouver Whitecaps have also seen a great year in attendance, averaging 20,507 fans for their 17 regular season home games. In addition, the ‘Caps drew an average of 17,518 for four games in the Amway Canadian Championship and the CONCACAF Champions League, not to mention 27,837 people for their playoff game against the Portland Timbers.

This year, the Whitecaps have sold out both of their games in their 22,120-seat configuration.

And now, after going 11 years without a competitive match in this city, the forever-criticized Canadian Men’s National Team seems to have found a home in Vancouver.

Four years ago, Canada played all six of their World Cup qualifiers at BMO Field in Toronto and drew fewer than 18,000 in attendance for every game. Around the same time period, BC Place drew 22,954 to see Canada play in an Olympic qualifying match in women’s soccer.

Last November, 20,108 people flocked to BC Place to see Canada’s World Cup qualifier against Honduras. Last Friday, 54,798 filled BC Place to set a new Canadian National Team record for Canada’s match against Mexico.

If you add it all up, BC Place saw 844,190 fans come through the gates in the last year for soccer matches.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/v...apital-canada/

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by rousseau

A city's profile is clearly not something that can be objectively verified with numbers.

And what can it be verified with then, since you confidently quantified it?

Originally Posted by rousseau

I suppose I'm having difficulty grasping what your point is in posting a table of visitor rankings in a discussion about the international profiles of various Canadian cities.

You have provided no definition of "international profile" or even an argument in support of your assertion that only Toronto and Montreal possess enough of it, whatever "it" is. You have simply asserted it.

Vancouver is not one of the world's sun destinations or tropical hotspots or winter escapes. It is just another Canadian city. The winters are milder, but they are also filled with incessant cold rain showers. There is nothing stopping international tourists from flocking to Montreal over Vancouver, instead of the other way around.

My point is obvious: When we compare Canadian city to Canadian city and find that Vancouver dominates Montreal in popularity among international tourists by almost to 2-to1 (and is growing in that dominance), then that is a sufficient reason to at least critically examine one's assumptions regarding which Canadian cities have sufficient "international profile" to be worthy to host a World Cup Final in our country.

Just asserting your assumption is not sufficient, as if it ever was. A compelling argument, not unsupported assertions, is required.

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal holds the record in Canada for a soccer game with 60,860, in may 2012.
Montréal holds the record for a CFL game with 69,093, in 1977
Montréal holds the record for a baseball game in Canada with 59,057, in 1982.

not bad, even though the stadium is not modern at all.

106,000 tickets sold for the 2 Blue Jays exhibition games, this year.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

What I'm saying is Toronto has nothing to offer a world cup final past what other Canadian cities do either than population. Edmonton and Calgary could host a world cup final just as well as Toronto and Montreal. It's funny how the west bashing is acceptable but you put Toronto on everyone else's level and you easterners lose it.

And what I said was TO and Montreal are dumps in Comparison to Vancouver which stands alone in Canada on that front as one of the worlds most beautiful cities. I've been to all 3. Vancouver amazed me and ranks high as one of the worlds most beautiful cities.

I think you guys over estimate How Toronto and Montreal rank on minds overseas. Most Americans Couldn't name you 2 Canadian cities and if they can it's most likely because of the MLB/NBA presence in Toronto. So you think people overseas would really be taken back if T.O. wasn't the final match host? I wasn't looking for an explanation of why Rio de Janeiro hosted it over Sao Paulo in Brazil because Honestly I don't know any better and I'm pretty sure the world hasn't studied Canadian metro's enough to care where it's hosted The games will be filled with people from all over the world more than Canadians anyway so why does population play such a big role? To say Toronto is entitled to it because of this so called "status" is just ridiculous

my only Question would be how do you fit another 15-20K into this?...or do you?

What are you smoking?

Vancouver is a fishing village on the shores of the Pacific in comparison to Toronto. I can't believe you can say with a straight face there are just as many things to do in Edmonton Calgary or Vancouver. Are you serious?

Vancouver as an urban destination offers very little. The cool and fun stuff to do is outside. It's an outdoors city. Mountains and ocean. Toronto is an actual city... ie it doesn't rely on its surroundings to define its image. The city itself is the image. Ditto for Montreal. I'm not going to bother talking about Edmonton or Calgary because that's just funny.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And what can it be verified with then, since you confidently quantified it?



You have provided no definition of "international profile" or even an argument in support of your assertion that only Toronto and Montreal possess enough of it, whatever "it" is. You have simply asserted it.

Vancouver is not one of the world's sun destinations or tropical hotspots or winter escapes. It is just another Canadian city. The winters are milder, but they are also filled with incessant cold rain showers. There is nothing stopping international tourists from flocking to Montreal over Vancouver, instead of the other way around.

My point is obvious: When we compare Canadian city to Canadian city and find that Vancouver dominates Montreal in popularity among international tourists by almost to 2-to1 (and is growing in that dominance), then that is a sufficient reason to at least critically examine one's assumptions regarding which Canadian cities have sufficient "international profile" to be worthy to host a World Cup Final in our country.

Just asserting your assumption is not sufficient, as if it ever was. A compelling argument, not unsupported assertions, is required.

I like Acajack's suggestion: we should call this kind of blathering the "glockenspiel argument." You've gone full glockenspiel.

So, it's not axiomatic that Toronto and Montreal are the most globally prominent Canadian cities? Some context-free overnight stay statistics cast that into doubt?

Well, I mean, that sounds dubious to me, so I spent a few seconds looking around, and it turns out that that particular study counts only arrivals by air, and Vancouver has a busier airport than Montreal. Montreal actually gets more visitors than Vancouver in total, and the news stories I found say that Vancouver's growth in visitors is due its busier airport. By contrast, Montreal gets more overland visitors from the U.S.

And when you look at the geography and the demographics, it kinda makes sense. Unlike the "dominating" that you seem to be fixated on so feverishly. You know, there are private clubs and Facebook groups for that.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by flipv

What are you smoking?

Vancouver is a fishing village on the shores of the Pacific in comparison to Toronto. I can't believe you can say with a straight face there are just as many things to do in Edmonton Calgary or Vancouver. Are you serious?

Vancouver as an urban destination offers very little. The cool and fun stuff to do is outside. It's an outdoors city. Mountains and ocean. Toronto is an actual city... ie it doesn't rely on its surroundings to define its image. The city itself is the image. Ditto for Montreal. I'm not going to bother talking about Edmonton or Calgary because that's just funny.

It's true Vancouver has a lot of outdoorsy stuff to offer, but it is also surprisingly urban. A reliable way to gauge a cities urbanity is to examine its inner city population and density, and on this measure Vancouver is right there with the most urban cities in North America.

Here's a look at Vancouver compared to other great urban cities...

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

I was curious how many people lived in a roughly five square mile area of downtown and it's immediate area for selected cities. I tried to get as close to five square mile as possible while:

1. including the entire area that would be referred to by locals as "downtown" (if I'm familiar with the city)

2. trying to get as close to a roughly rectilinear area as possible, while still counting only entire census tracts.

Since the areas are approximate, I've rounded both the areas and the population densities to two significant digits. The numbers are all from the 2010 U.S. Census, and the 2011 Canadian Census.

1. New York



population: 370,430
approx. area: 4.9 square miles
approx. density: 76,000 ppsm


2. Toronto



population: 175,064
approx. area: 5.0 square miles
approx. density: 35,000 ppsm


3. Vancouver



population: 163,753
approx. area: 5.3 square miles
approx. density: 31,000 ppsm


4. San Francisco



population: 128,317
approx. area: 5.0 square miles
approx. density: 26,000 ppsm


5. Chicago



population: 130,308
approx. area: 5.3 square miles
approx. density: 25,000 ppsm

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

What I'm saying is Toronto has nothing to offer a world cup final past what other Canadian cities do either than population. Edmonton and Calgary could host a world cup final just as well as Toronto and Montreal.

I think the idiocy of everything you post is summed up really well by your signature: "I don't want to hear your opinions on facts."

Believing that (some?) facts might exist in a vacuum, that there are facts that defy interpretation, or supersede interpretation, or for which there is no need of context, is a remarkably confused and incoherent notion to have.

(Your username looks like "oik country," and it's hilarious how that totally fits!)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I like Acajack's suggestion: we should call this kind of blathering the "glockenspiel argument." You've gone full glockenspiel.

So, it's not axiomatic that Toronto and Montreal are the most globally prominent Canadian cities? Some context-free overnight stay statistics cast that into doubt?

Well, I mean, that sounds dubious to me, so I spent a few seconds looking around, and it turns out that that particular study counts only arrivals by air, and Vancouver has a busier airport than Montreal. Montreal actually gets more visitors than Vancouver in total, and the news stories I found say that Vancouver's growth in visitors is due its busier airport. By contrast, Montreal gets more overland visitors from the U.S.

And when you look at the geography and the demographics, it kinda makes sense. Unlike the "dominating" that you seem to be fixated on so feverishly. You know, there are private clubs and Facebook groups for that.

That table is showing Vancouver getting twice as much dollars spent. Not taking sides, just noting that something doesn't add up.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by logan5

That table is showing Vancouver getting twice as much dollars spent. Not taking sides, just noting that something doesn't add up.

Those are airport arrivals only.

[logan5]

The table says overnight visitors, which suggests more than just an airport stopover. The last column says "Visitors Spend", which indicates visitors spent twice as much money in Vancouver than in Montreal, which would indicate that Vancouver is getting a lot more international visits. I'm only pointing out what the table says.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Source: http://www.moneysense.ca/spend/shopp...-for-tourists/

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal , 9.6M visitors, they spent $2.9B.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loca...sm-in-montreal

[logan5]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Those are airport arrivals only.

Oh right.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Montréal , 9.6M visitors, they spent $2.9B.
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loca...sm-in-montreal

Looks like Montreal's got us beat...

RECORD YEAR FOR TOURISM IN VANCOUVER: 9.4 MILLION VISITORS IN 2015!

January 5th, 2016

The latest visitor data provided by Destination BC projects that the 2015 overnight visitation numbers will exceed over nine million people - setting another new record for Metro Vancouver’s tourism industry. It is estimated that the tourism industry in BC’s largest city supports over 66,000 jobs, contributes approximately $1.6 billion in taxes, and generates direct visitor spending of around $3.5 billion annually.

http://www.bcplace.com/blog/2016-01-...ar-for-tourism