Venice is drowning in more ways than one
I read this morning of the inundation of Venice this week with Acqua Alta (high water) 6 feet 1 inch above sea level (when 4 feet 5 inches is considered "manageable"). When I was there 2 weeks ago, there was no sign of any flooding. The pavements were dry and the shopkeepers busy selling to the tourists.
And therein lies the second drowning. Venice is the epitome of the tourist inundation of Italy. Tourists are everywhere. The language you hear spoken on the street is less often Italian and more often English (or some other). The cultural clash is also evident between the non-Italians and the locals. Most often this takes the form of abrasiveness. When you walk into a shop, you are always greeted, "Buon Giorno!" or "Buona Sera!". The locals (and wiser tourists :-) all respond in kind. It's a pleasant departure from the abrupt encounters we have in America. The shopkeepers all care about their shops--they are all tidy, floors mopped, windows washed, sidewalks swept (yes, they even tidy up the pavements!). And when tourists unconsciously work in opposition to all that, well, the locals shrug--just one more injustice to accommodate the oblivious.
December is rivaled only by January in being "low season", a time when fewer tourists afflict the local residents. This is not the best time of year to visit, the weather is unpredictable, usually overcast, but occasionally sunny, it might rain, but it might not (not even the weather apps know for sure). It reminds me a lot of a less predictable Seattle.
Low season means you can find restaurant seats at highly rated restaurants on short notice (you may have to go there in person to schmooze to get the reservation or eat early, 7:00pm is considered unusually early, but it's possible :-). You can get into the museums without making reservations weeks or months in advance; in fact you can get a same day ticket pretty easily; and once inside you can actually look at a work of art without being jostled by crowds.
Nonetheless there are obvious tour groups marauding the hallways of museums with their selfie-sticks, oblivious to the beauty around them and only looking for that perfect Instagram shot with Botticelli's Birth of Venus or La Primavera in the background. Yet just a few feet away is another Botticelli, a portrait of the risen Christ, that is singular in its depiction, yet no one glances in its direction. They sweep through, pause for a few seconds, long enough to get that "perfect" shot. I am grateful they move on quickly after collecting their trophies.
Still this is all indicative of the tourist inundation of Italy, particularly the big cities with famous sites: Venice, Rome, Florence, Milan, but even smaller cities like Bologna, and each for different reasons: antiquities, Renaissance art, food. The Italians argue about what to do in the situation. They have become dependent: tourist spending is many small shopkeeper's (and probably cultural institutions') primary source of income.
Yet they know there are limits, and that they have exceeded them. It's particularly obvious in Venice, which is physically limited, not only in land, but in the capacity of its walkways. In early November, it was crowded but you could cope. I can't imagine what it must be like in high season, especially after one of the huge cruise ships lands and disgorges many hundreds of day visitors each. There are signs of pushback. Venice is talking about instituting daily visitor fees for cruise ships and making them disembark in the Lido instead of Piazza San Marco (this latter move to introduce inconvenience rather than cost may be effective). In Florence, the Uffizi Galleries charge an additional 70 euros over admission fees for any group over 10 people, and the Pitti Palace King's Rooms forbids tour groups led by guides.
It seems the method of choice is to raise the prices to throttle demand (with exceptions for students). This has its own limitations in welcoming the wealthy and discouraging those with less. While it is ethically challenged, it is also of dubious effect. The groups of tourists I've seen are mostly not of the poor or even middle class. Charging more will bring in more money for the museums, cities, etc., but will not be likely to limit the inundation. So what to do? Ban tour groups altogether? Add speed-bumps to make it less convenient (like the Lido landings)? Institute a lottery for non-transferable admission to the most sought after museums and sites?
Personally, I'm in favor of speed bumps or limiting the number of tour groups that can gain admission to a museum per day (at least this can be enforced, but is subject to being gamed and to corruption). Those who come as singles, couples, families don't seem to be a problem (yet). What solutions do you think would work?
And therein lies the second drowning. Venice is the epitome of the tourist inundation of Italy. Tourists are everywhere. The language you hear spoken on the street is less often Italian and more often English (or some other). The cultural clash is also evident between the non-Italians and the locals. Most often this takes the form of abrasiveness. When you walk into a shop, you are always greeted, "Buon Giorno!" or "Buona Sera!". The locals (and wiser tourists :-) all respond in kind. It's a pleasant departure from the abrupt encounters we have in America. The shopkeepers all care about their shops--they are all tidy, floors mopped, windows washed, sidewalks swept (yes, they even tidy up the pavements!). And when tourists unconsciously work in opposition to all that, well, the locals shrug--just one more injustice to accommodate the oblivious.
December is rivaled only by January in being "low season", a time when fewer tourists afflict the local residents. This is not the best time of year to visit, the weather is unpredictable, usually overcast, but occasionally sunny, it might rain, but it might not (not even the weather apps know for sure). It reminds me a lot of a less predictable Seattle.
Low season means you can find restaurant seats at highly rated restaurants on short notice (you may have to go there in person to schmooze to get the reservation or eat early, 7:00pm is considered unusually early, but it's possible :-). You can get into the museums without making reservations weeks or months in advance; in fact you can get a same day ticket pretty easily; and once inside you can actually look at a work of art without being jostled by crowds.
Nonetheless there are obvious tour groups marauding the hallways of museums with their selfie-sticks, oblivious to the beauty around them and only looking for that perfect Instagram shot with Botticelli's Birth of Venus or La Primavera in the background. Yet just a few feet away is another Botticelli, a portrait of the risen Christ, that is singular in its depiction, yet no one glances in its direction. They sweep through, pause for a few seconds, long enough to get that "perfect" shot. I am grateful they move on quickly after collecting their trophies.
Still this is all indicative of the tourist inundation of Italy, particularly the big cities with famous sites: Venice, Rome, Florence, Milan, but even smaller cities like Bologna, and each for different reasons: antiquities, Renaissance art, food. The Italians argue about what to do in the situation. They have become dependent: tourist spending is many small shopkeeper's (and probably cultural institutions') primary source of income.
Yet they know there are limits, and that they have exceeded them. It's particularly obvious in Venice, which is physically limited, not only in land, but in the capacity of its walkways. In early November, it was crowded but you could cope. I can't imagine what it must be like in high season, especially after one of the huge cruise ships lands and disgorges many hundreds of day visitors each. There are signs of pushback. Venice is talking about instituting daily visitor fees for cruise ships and making them disembark in the Lido instead of Piazza San Marco (this latter move to introduce inconvenience rather than cost may be effective). In Florence, the Uffizi Galleries charge an additional 70 euros over admission fees for any group over 10 people, and the Pitti Palace King's Rooms forbids tour groups led by guides.
It seems the method of choice is to raise the prices to throttle demand (with exceptions for students). This has its own limitations in welcoming the wealthy and discouraging those with less. While it is ethically challenged, it is also of dubious effect. The groups of tourists I've seen are mostly not of the poor or even middle class. Charging more will bring in more money for the museums, cities, etc., but will not be likely to limit the inundation. So what to do? Ban tour groups altogether? Add speed-bumps to make it less convenient (like the Lido landings)? Institute a lottery for non-transferable admission to the most sought after museums and sites?
Personally, I'm in favor of speed bumps or limiting the number of tour groups that can gain admission to a museum per day (at least this can be enforced, but is subject to being gamed and to corruption). Those who come as singles, couples, families don't seem to be a problem (yet). What solutions do you think would work?
Comments
Post a Comment