# Death of Venice? Tourists pour in as residents head out



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ This idea of banning people without hotel reservations entering Venezia is completely outrageous. If not for foreigners, for the very Italians (and EU citizens alike) who have the right to wand through whatever city they want, whenever they want, without any "permission" required.

What happens in Venezia/Venice is just an amplified version of a phenomenon affecting historic districts in Italian medieval cities historic cores (like Urbino, Matera or Ovieto for instace): historical buildings might look cool, nice and "awesome", but they are a heck of a hell when it comes to modern life. Wiring Internet and TV cables is a nightmare. Restoration works are easily done in the façades, but don't and can't solve problems of their unfitness to modern life demands. Hydraulic systems are another difficult issue to be deal with, as you don't have water and sewage mains like those in modern buildings.

In Venezia, you add all of that to the transportation inconveniences (it can be cool to stay a day there, it can be hell if you need to bring EVERY single package by boat) and the natural difficulties of building over pet and clay threatened by brackish waters. Seriously, it doesn't take long to notice how it is almost impossible to have a comfortable life there. It can be charming for a weekend, but dreadful for an year.

These people complaining that "outsiders are driving out people by outbidding locals in the real estate market" are hypocrite whiners. Many of those medieval city cores would be deserted or run-down if not by tourist activity. Local businessmen benefit immensely when they transform a 3-rd floor apartment that would go for rent by € 600/month into a Bed & Breakfast whose 3 rooms sell for € 90/night - each. They benefit when a sleepy and dark tobacconist (where smoking fortunately is not allowed anymore!) turns into a fancy clothing brand store, paying 10x as much rent and so.

IMO, without tourism Venice would be facing even more accelerated depopulation. I take the example of many Alpine valleys in Northern Italy whose smaller mountain cities have been losing population since the end of WW-2. Those are difficult places to go, build and live (like Venezia), their original economical activity is now obsolete or facing unbeatable competition from elsewhere (like Venezia) but, contrary to Venezia, they cannot - all of them - attract herds of visitors to keep the money flowing, particular those alpine valleys where there are no ski resorts. You find them all over Piemonte and Sud Tyrol-Alto Adige.

Seriously: as Venezia/Venice port was obliterated by far more modern facilities elsewhere, as it lost its cultural center edge after Italian unification in late 18th Century, as its shipbuilding docks cannot compete with those in Scandinavia or Asia and are mostly closed for good, what economic activity could sustain a so "inefficient" place to begin with?

I agree the phenomenon of day-trip cities is as issue in Italy (overcrowded by day, empty by night), but this is more the consequence of some places being unfit for daily non-touristic city life, no matter how some people (many people, indeed) might love their buildings and scenery. If you want to see what life would be if there were no mass tourism, I can list a handful of absolutely (architecturally speaking) amazing places with centuries old history in Italy, some well preserved, that are slowing folding into decay or stagnation with an ever-aging population. Calabria and Basilicata, being no "Sicilia" and too far from any major hotstop to attract the massive influx seen in villages in Toscana and Umbria, have many places with buildings dating back from Greek times, usually unspoiled, but with no apparent future. No foreigners buy second homes there, there are few hotels, few traffic, many stores catering for locals - and no hope for progress at all as mountain agriculture is doomed and has been doomed since 1950.


----------



## TugaMtl (May 2, 2009)

Honestly I'm not suprised. I'm sure that Venice is a wonderful place to visit, but to actually live there? yikes.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

I went to Venice by myself for 5 days back in 2006. It took me around 2 days to figure my way around and know what was going on without looking at the damn signs every time I wanted to go anywhere. I remember thinking the last two days I was there and trying to zip around the islands/over the canals - "god, all these damn slow moving tourists getting in my way".

I felt bad for the people who actually lived there. They would have to deal with drowning in all those slow moving babbling tourists EVERY DAY. I mean I know they dump a ton of money into the city - and it's an AMAZING place, but that would still suck to actually live there day after day.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ To be honest, when I was there, 95% of the tourists were crowded around Piazza San Marco and the narrow shopping street between there and the Rialto Bridge. The vast rest of the city did have tourists but it wasn't to any extreme and there were still plenty of spots away from the main tourist sites which appeared to be mostly locals.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I personally opted to stay in Mestre, which is still very close but was far cheaper and friendlier to hauling heavy luggage. I did see some local neighbourhoods although it is a bit sad to see tourists making up the vast majority of people on the streets inside Venice.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ I personally wouldn't want to stay in Mestre, which is quite an unattractive place in my mind. It's like staying out in the suburbs when visiting a city and having to commute each day. It lacks the character of Venice and what makes Venice so special.

I had no problems with transporting luggage though, water taxi's can take you straight to your door, almost (actually, in some hotels yes)

But I would imagine the people are friendlier in Mestre.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

hkskyline said:


> Venice is dying as a functioning city. Most of its permanent residents have left[...]


I remember this thread.. it's 4 years old!

Four years and is Venice still dying? What a slow death! I can imagine how she has to suffer...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Many historical centers of many European cities are "dying" also, being replaced by tourism-related activity. Venezia/Venice is odd only in the sense that the "historical center" is separated from the rest by a lagoon.


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

i spent seven blissful days in venice a few years ago and ive dreamed of living there ever since. Of course i'll never be able to afford it but one factor that makes it difficult to live in (no roads) is the one thing that makes it beautiful. The noise, smell and danger of cars spoils many cities imo. 

Anyway getting back on topic there are vast areas of historical venice that were more or less deserted of tourists when i was there. There is a massive maze of alley ways that is easy to get lost in where i saw almost no tourists. These are the most beautiful parts of venice imo. If i ever did win the lottery and was able to buy somewhere there i would get a place away from the grand canal and San Marco and i would actually live there all of the time. (Of course i'd buy a little boat  )


----------



## ***** (Apr 2, 2008)

Historical centre of Venice must be closed for tourist.If we want to save Venice (and other fragile historic towns for future generation) that ih one thing wich must be done.
If that dosent hapend Venice and not only Venice will literaaly fall apart and than chance for saving wiil not exist.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

If they put a limit on how many people can visit, hotels will need to hike their prices in order to make up for the shrinking market. I should book my ticket sooner rather than later.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

***** said:


> Historical centre of Venice must be closed for tourist.If we want to save Venice (and other fragile historic towns for future generation) that ih one thing wich must be done.
> If that dosent hapend Venice and not only Venice will literaaly fall apart and than chance for saving wiil not exist.


LOL you can't close it. Huge amounts of people walking there have no significant engineering impact on the survival of the city. All the problems are merely economic. And no place should have the right to isolate itself from their own fellow country citizens as a no-go zone!!!


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Bond James Bond said:


> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/29/news/venice.php
> 
> Death of Venice? Tourists pour in as residents head out


The loss of population, & I'm guessing vitality, in Venice is sad. 

Its topography shares more than a bit with those parts of New Orleans that were devastated by Katrina. Its not a new challenge though. I've been hearing about the demise of Venice for decades. 

This historic treasure of a city has been around a long time though & with good planning, upkeep, & investment I'm sure it will endure.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Again, saving the city buildings is being taken care with the Moses project. However, it will be impossible to revert it (as if it had ever been) "just a typical Italian city which is unique due to its location".


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> Many historical centers of many European cities are "dying" also, being replaced by tourism-related activity. Venezia/Venice is odd only in the sense that the "historical center" is separated from the rest by a lagoon.


I don't know about the part of Europe where you live, but where I live, and where I visit all around Europe, I can't see anything resembling what you write. If anything, the historical centers of European cities seem to be on a high, with large amounts of renovations and always popular to live in. Venice being one of the exceptions.

The main problem with Venice is that the buildings are in dire need of very very expensive renovation. It's not just a matter of a simple paint job. Few people can afford these renovations which include massive foundation works and so they find it cheaper to just move out.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

***** said:


> Historical centre of Venice must be closed for tourist.If we want to save Venice (and other fragile historic towns for future generation) that ih one thing wich must be done.
> If that dosent hapend Venice and not only Venice will literaaly fall apart and than chance for saving wiil not exist.


And this has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever seen here on skyscrapercity. How exactly will this be enforced? Will they have border guards like during the DDR time of East Berlin? Passports needed and proof of residence before entering the center of Venice? Considering the busiest parts actually have the least amount of residents, I guess then it would end up being totally empty.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

If Venice were to be closed/off limits to tourists that city would become a ghost town. Tourism is at least keeping that city economically viable for the time being.


----------



## LeStryge (Aug 31, 2010)

*Who for?*



***** said:


> Historical centre of Venice must be closed for tourist.If we want to save Venice (and other fragile historic towns for future generation) that ih one thing wich must be done..


Saving for the "future generation" ....of whom just exactly?
The residents thermselves? They are already leaving due to the massive financial upkeep required by the historical nature of the crumbling buildings.
No tourists would see the population decline even further, as the economic income is removed. You'd be left with a privileged few who have inherited there. In the future you'd have large areas of ramshackle ruins no one could afford to restore. The cash strapped Italian government is not going to pour money into a city no one can visit except a few locals and the pidgeons!
OR are you saving for the tourists of the future? Here we go again!
Let them in again at some future date and history WILL repeat itself.


----------



## as87930 (Sep 3, 2010)

Sounds like Venice might be turned into one GIANT MUSEUM if all the residents leave!


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

Can Venice even do anything economically without tourism?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Imperfect Ending said:


> Can Venice even do anything economically without tourism?


No, it can't. Venezia, indeed, was one of the first "tourist destinations" in this sense. Tours to Venezia were famous in Wien, München and other European city's elites by late 19th Century already (of course in a very different scale).

Something a few people know is that Venice was one of the first cities to suffer aerial bombardment in Europe, in WW-1, when the Austrian-Hungarian army used zeppelins to drop a few bombs over the city during the many bloody battled fought between Italy and the Austrian-Hungarian empire.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Isnt it possible to build more houses in Venice? If it is popular and desired, why not expand the city. Build new canals.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Dahlis said:


> Isnt it possible to build more houses in Venice? If it is popular and desired, why not expand the city. Build new canals.


It's almost impossible to build anything new in Venice due to people or groups who are opposed to anything modern. Just look at the shit building a single new bridge.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

> Isnt it possible to build more houses in Venice? If it is popular and desired, why not expand the city. Build new canals.


They are already having trouble maintaining the buildings that are already there. New constructions will be more expensive to build than on dry land, more expensive to maintain, and more buildings will not solve the root of the problem - that the economy is geared towards only one thing: tourism and nothing but tourism. In the end Venice would just end up with a larger proportion of empty buildings, except some of them will be from the 21st century.

In the end we have to accept that cities and economies evolve. It could be worse: at least Venice is not "dying" in the way that, say, Detroit is.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Many historical centers of many European cities are "dying" also, being replaced by tourism-related activity. Venezia/Venice is odd only in the sense that the "historical center" is separated from the rest by a lagoon.


You can also see it from the other end, with the influx of tourists and the economical activity they bring, several european historical centers have been renovated and revitalized. 

Tallin is an exellent example of how a post communist dead historic city center with the influx of tourism and commerce have regenerated itself into an attractive area in the city.


----------



## pokistic (May 8, 2007)

The whole city one day will become pretty soon a theme park type of place with a bunch of Hotel rooms. Disney should buy the place, give jobs to some of the local population left and have daily and nightly shows and events for the tourists.


----------

