The link with the table I posted with the example of Barcelona seems to be broken, so you might have missed it, I uploaded it again here:
Oh, I did read a few articles, and since they seemed strangely incomplete or decidedly misleading, I went and searched for papers instead. Here you can find a few:
http://www.tourismnortheast.co.uk/downloads/olympic_impact_on_tourism_study.pdf
http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/When-the-Games-Come-to-Town-M-Smith-2008.pdf
http://books.google.ca/books?id=GQz...1&ots=FEg_9_8h3u&dq=olympics&output=html_text
You'll see there's a pattern: tourism grows steadily for about 4 years previous to the Olympics, followed by a big spike the year of the event, then comes a dip in hotel occupancy the next year or two (fueled by the oversupply of hotel rooms left after the olympics, even if in some cases tourist numbers are steady, there are just too many rooms), and then a steady growth for about a decade. The articles that state tourism is negatively impacted by an Olympiad mainly concentrate on the two year slump after the games (the "peak and through" effect), and ignore the previous years of growth and the big rise that comes after a few years in most cases. They also seem to focus on hotel occupancy without explaining the natural oversupply after an event of this magnitude, or they talk about growth expressed in percentages instead of the actual number of tourists (it's more eye-catching to read "there was a 3% dip the next year!!!" than "total numbers went back to previous levels for a year or two before they started to rise again")
And please don't simplify my arguments. First: I said I think the Olympics CAN be a catalyst for tourism if done right. Of course, it's not always the case, but when it works, like with Barcelona, it works big time (and no, Barcelona is not the only Olympic Games that hasn't had a negative economic impact for the host city, it's just the brightest success. In fact, every Olympiad since 1984 has been profitable). Second: I never even said tourism was the main selling point for me, but the regeneration of former derelict areas, the homes that are built (both affordable and at market rates) and the transit infrastructure that's left as a legacy. And I think a city like Toronto can stand to gain a lot more than a city that already has that, like London.