And how much tax money is being spent on the AGO expansion? About $50 million. Which attraction do you think is more important in attracting tourists? Would a better gallery attract tourists who spend more money than American baseball fans? Perhaps these are questions worth asking. By the way, the MOMA expansion that was recently completed cost $858 million (US), or just over a billion $CDN. Total cost for the AGO is less than a fifth of that.

I think everything is important...I don't think it's a matter of comparing art galleries to multi-purpose sports facilities. The Skydome has obviously netted the economy far more than the investment, and cultural facilities for the higher arts bring us more than just fiscal benefits.

I don't even see a valid point in your post....just bitching for the sake of it?






KGB

I think everything is important...I don't think it's a matter of comparing art galleries to multi-purpose sports facilities. The Skydome has obviously netted the economy far more than the investment, and cultural facilities for the higher arts bring us more than just fiscal benefits.

I don't even see a valid point in your post....just bitching for the sake of it?
KGB
I guess my point is that governments are only willing to give 10% of the money to an arts facility that they give to a sports facility. One of the reasons tourists prefer Montreal over Toronto is that in Quebec, they understand the importance of art and the spaces that house it. The government in Quebec doesn't cheap out on things as vital to tourism as art galleries.

Your position still makes zero sense...the Skydome was a one-time deal...the government spends many times more on cultural, housing, recreational, education, hospitals, etc projects than on private sector sports facilities.

And I would say Toronto has a decided advantage in the arts...larger sector, with more private investment.





KGB

why are you comparing something that is 15 years old to something in the present...they are completely unrelated and dont tie into one another at all.

^People realized that the Skydome did end up costing the government a lot of wasted tax dollars.. & the government will likely learn from this lesson and never commit so much money to these projects again...

It seems fair to point out that MoMA was funded without government assistance. It's not like the New-York Historical Society, the Museum of the City of New York or the Metropolitan, which all get city funding.

It seems fair to point out that MoMA was funded without government assistance. It's not like the New-York Historical Society, the Museum of the City of New York or the Metropolitan, which all get city funding.
The thing is, in America, taxes are extremely low, which has fostered a culture of philanthropy. In Canada, taxes are sky high, which means we expect the government to pay for everything, including arts and culture. The problem is, they don't, especially not in Toronto.

"In America, taxes are extremely low, which has fostered a culture of philanthropy."

Wrong, Watson.

Taxes cuts to the very rich encourage a culture of philanthropy. If that billion bucks didn't tumble off some rich fascist's books, MoMA would be out on the corner with the rest of the homeless.

some rich fascist's books

You have sometime against the rich?

"It seems fair to point out that MoMA was funded without government assistance. "


Well, it's not like the NYC government is in any position to pay for it...it's bankrupt.




And stop saying the government pays for everything...the different levels of government indeed fund culture, but the majority is private.

Nothing lives and dies by single projects...so stop pretending they do. And I suppose ole kenny might be a little upset not taking into account his pidly $390 million contribution to the AGO.

Most of Toronto's cultural stuff is grass-roots, independantly run anyway...the big institutions are nice, but hardly make up my idea of cultural interest.





KGB