I don't disagree with that, but we should be clear that this is what is being proposed.
> Do you think poor people should also be able to park their cars in Manhattan for free?
All community centers, pools, camps, etc for both cities refuse to give in-city rates. Since either my license says the wrong city, or my taxes go to the wrong city.
Tourism at this scale is a modern day privilege, you can some some nice vacations without going to europe’s most crowded island. My best vacation were far from the most expensive one. And my most expensive was one of the worst.
In my town , lots of things are cheaper for the working class of the town. Is this also unfair for the poor tourist, on his break?
Another aspect I'm thinking about is 'motivation'. High prices that require to really think about it and perhaps even to plan in advance also filter visitors according to how much they wanted to visit.
I'm sure some people really dream of visiting Venice once in their life and would be willing to save if needed be in order to do so. On the other hand, there are people who see that Easyjet has 30 euro flights at the moment so decide to go to Venice for the weekend just like that.
Adding a fee, at some point supply and demand will become balanced. The city will have the max number of tourist it can handle at the max price people are willing to pay. The resource will now be managed correctly.
If the income is absurdly high, then other areas may start expanding out into the sea to provide a similar experience. Giving tourist more options. See Islands of Dubai for example. At some point enough new tourist options are opened that Venice will need to lower fee until a new balance is reached.
Thus tourist have more options and lower prices overall. Wealth has been created.
Is this the backstory for the next BioShock game?
People will dine at fine restaurant as a treat. People will travel to the Bahamas as a treat. People will buy a SUV for comfort as a treat.
All those things are luxuries, and have nothing to do with wealth.
We'll have a coupon day, or something.
So there will barely be an entry fee for people coming for the day too. For a measure targeting people coming from thousands of kilometers away, I do not see how this is even going to make a dent in the tourist influx.
Looking for relatively similar cases like Machu Picchu or Tanzania national parks, I would have expected a fee between 50$ and 100$ to curb the tourism.
"The fabulously beautiful planet of Bethselamin was so worried by
accumulative erosion cause by over ten billion visiting tourists per
year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the
amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from
your body weight when you leave; so every time you go to the
lavatory there, it is vitally important to get a receipt." - HHGTTG
At a conference in Rome I met a Venetian who told me those cruise ships are the bane of their lives. She wanted to move out for health reasons, because the constant stinking miasma of marine diesel from dozens of ships. They are also HUGE, like floating cities, that literally darken the skyline. The tens of thousands of visitors dropping litter and blocking the pavement to take selfies are just a minor inconvenience.
Also funny we never hear from the people who are making money from tourism? Only negative Nancy's.
I'd wager that Marghera's refinery saved Venice much more than tourism did, at least economically speaking. Also, are you talking about Venice proper (the island parts) or the City of Venice more widely (including Mestre and Marghera)?
> Also funny we never hear from the people who are making money from tourism?
I can speak for that. My grandpa was one of the kiosks owner in Piazza S. Marco. After his retirement my uncles inherited it.
My grandpa used to make a lot of money from tourists buying souvenirs. In the last 20 years sales dropped, nobody buys anything from them anymore, they are now trying to sell sweaters and hats and (of course) they can't seem to sell those either.
But still, my grandpa complains both when there's plenty of tourists and when there are none.
EDIT: I forgot to type where this was going: my grandpa is against this entry fee.
/EDIT
It would be interesting to know who actually makes money in Venice.
Just my two cents: if the only people happy in a city are those that make money from tourism then it's not a city, it's a theme park.
A branch of the family owns two restaurants in Venice and they are making money hand over fist. The quality of the food is completely average for Venice, but the locations are good, the menu is optimized for consistency and tourist tastes (north american, southeast asia/chineese and european primarily), and most importantly (according to them) they spend a ton of effort optimizing their presence on food review apps like tripadvisor.
Not sayings restaurants are easy, but they are making a shocking amount of money from selling very average food.
They do now. Up until last year they docked at Tronchetto (https://www.google.com/maps/place/terminal+msc+venezia/@45.4...) traversing the Canale della Giudecca to get there (that big canal between the main island and the Giudecca island in the southern part).
As someone noticed earlier the introduction of a ticket to access a city (be it Venice or Florence) will probably only make a dent in the total amount of people visiting it (which is the actual problem, they are simply too many) while making a difference between the "wealthy" and the "poor".
If the issue is too many people, the only solution is to limit the number of people (within reason and using some common sense in the way these hypothetical limits are set and enforced), introducing a ticket won't make any difference if not - possibly - provide the municipalities with money to cover the expenses these tourists create (the first thing that comes to my mind is litter, but there is also water, street and bridges maintenance, etc.).
And that implements GP's suggestion, but it turns out this is not enough to limit the number of daytime visitors.
The problem with both of those schemes is that there are a number of exceptions: people who live in the region, people who spend the night in the city... You don't want to place the burden of checking your hotel reservation on a train employee during a 5 minute ride or at a toll booth.
I disagree.
This seems like a "great way" to damage the tourism industry in Venice. In other words, I think this is a terrible way to deal with tourists who are visiting Venice, yet aren't spending enough money in Venice.
I think it would be better to require every adult tourist to buy, say, €10 worth of "Venice Money" which they could spend at any restaurant or shop in Venice during the day they are visiting. Too many tourists? Then increase it to, say, €15. Too few tourists? Then decrease it to, say, €5.
Part of the goal is to require tourists to spend a minimum amount of money while visiting Venice. Charging an admission fee seems too heavy-handed. Sure, I realize that my suggestion is tantamount to an admission fee, but it's likely to be more palatable to tourists. The goal isn't merely to get tourists to spend a sufficient amount of money in Venice; part of the goal is to make tourists happy to do so.
Tourists are notoriously fickle. Furthermore, they have myriad places in and around Italy, Europe, and, well, the world where they can spend their money. The current problem of too many tourists could very quickly turn into a problem of a dearth of tourists.
"Killing the goose that lays the golden egg" would obviously be foolish. I presume the economy in Venice benefits immensely from tourism. This is precisely the sort of measure that people tend to look back at in hindsight and exclaim, "How could we have committed such a blunder! What were we thinking?!?"
Having opined all of that, sure, I can see why denizens of Venice would welcome a measure that would decrease the number of tourists generally, and particularly the number of skinflint tourists who visit Venice, yet don't spend a single euro in Venice.
Also, frankly, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Venice to enforce dress codes and behavior codes. For example, nobody wants an endless "parade" of motley dressed drunkards wandering around their neighborhood.
Personally I happily shop at Costco, but haven’t set foot in a Walmart in perhaps 20 years. I detest Walmart. Why? Part of the reason is this: Costco has a “greeter” standing at the enterance. Ostensibly the greeter’s job is to verify that people entering are members. In fact, that greeter is also eyeballing each person who enters and is empowered to deny enterance to people who don’t meet Costco’s minimum standards (which aren’t very high, but are still much, much higher than Walmart’s standards).
Similarly, one of the "secrets" to the success of Las Vegas strip is this: although they allow a lot of rowdy behavior, frankly, they actually keep a tight lid on things: a very, very, tight lid, which I presume you would have noticed if you’ve ever actually been there and paid attention.
It's a delicate balance which requires discretion bordering on sophisticated and subtle diplomacy.
For example, when dealing with "drunk idiots" the Las Vegas police tend to use kid gloves as much as possible. Why? The powers that be in Las Vegas want "visitors" (tourists) to tell their family, friends, and associates they had a great time on the Las Vegas strip. They also want most of the tourists themselves to return over, and over, and over again.
The same is true for a myriad of tourist destinations around the world.
This is about creating a livable city, and this implies balancing commercial interests with the interests of the larger local community. Tourism isn't unethical or bad, but it does become an issue as far as the locals are concerned when unchecked growth and a focus to maximize tourist spending pushes everything else out. That's when a city stops being a city and effectively turns into a theme park.
When it comes to local politics, it's clear to everyone that tourism is a cornerstone of our local economy. But at the same time, having millions visiting one's city does come at a cost regarding pollution, noise, mobility, safety, prices of goods and services, upkeep of public infrastructure, etc. Tourism is an industry and it needs to be treated as such in terms of policies and regulations.
Externalizing all of those costs to the local population simply won't do. Taxing tourists is just one tactic to do just that. Other strategies include toning down city marketing, adapting fiscal / grant policies for commerce and hospitality, a permit stop for hotels / airbn'b / B&B's, banning cruise ships from ports, limiting admissions to public venues (museums,...), regulating guided tours, regulating bars / restaurants (closing hours, terraces, signage,...)
At the same time, it's the responsibility of a city council to also enact policies / investments in alternate industries to ensure a healthy mix which makes it attractive enough for a diverse population to stay and live there e.g. invest in research, tech, higher education, local economies, etc.
I travelled to Venice as a student. My girlfriend was from Australia, that was the one chance in her life to go to Venice. We lived on low 10s of Euro a day and would have been eating sandwiches we made in Venice and pasta we cooked for dinner. We could have paid 10-20 Euro as an entry fee (as we did for the Uffizi, the Vatican museum, etc.) but not 100 Euro, even for 'Venice Money'.
The other thing this measure would encourage is higher prices and scams. People waiting near the train station offering to change Venice money for real money. Shops selling cigarettes and other high-value stuff at a markup for Venice money. Low-quality art and souvenirs being targeted at tourists who haven't spent all their money on the way out (as used to happen in Warsaw Pact countries which had currency controls). Higher prices on basic food and drink as cafes know that tourists will have a 'sunk cost' feeling.
I think that's overselling it. Greatly. I took a day trip to Venice from Ljubljana to meet family there. The whole place reeked of sewage, and the crowds of aimlessly meandering tourists were stifling. Like most tourist traps, it felt shallow, with little to offer beyond staring at old buildings, tons of shops selling worthless trinkets, and pricey restaurants. I wanted to try mingling with the locals more, but wasn't able to quickly find information on nightclubs/raves/etc. in the immediate area.
I took some nice pictures, rode in the gondola, went to dinner, then returned to LJ. I actually wish I had spent more time in Trieste, Zagreb, or had linked up with a casual acquaintance all the way in Zurich. My dad paid for everything we did while IN the city, but if I was spending my own money I would probably never return to Venice. So an entry tax is definitely a "nope" for me.
What did you like about Trieste and Zagreb (I've never been and I'm not familiar with them)?
I was only in Zagreb for a day. I took a train from LJ, then walked several kilometers to scope out a university with a Masters program that I was curious about. The city felt a little "rough", reminding me of Philadelphia but with much less urban decay. The staff and the students at the university were stacked with attractive and curious females. Being the only black guy in a 3-piece suit in probably a 1000km radius may have been a factor.
"unpolished, quiet, probably a little dangerous, but FULL of beautiful women". The Former Yugoslavia is kinda like the Thai or Philippine countryside, but with better infrastructure and weather.
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be if I had applied to the Bled School of Business, setup shop as a defense consultant in LJ, and rotated through a circuit of bachelor pads in LJ/Trieste/Zagreb....
I'll suspect more people have Venice on their bucket list than Bhutan, so that would be a minimum bound answer for your question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_worker...
They can also regulate the amount of traffic, that's included in the sovereign rights associated with docks.
This means they can both charge entry, and limit access in a given day. I expect flatly refusing entry to specific people would be a different story.
Increasing hotel fees doesn’t stop day visitors. Venice also has plenty of Airbnb available, which in my uninformed opinion ruins any control the city has (maybe they require permits and tax?)
Increasing food prices hurts the locals, and just means many tourists will skip eating out.
Those gondolieres? Standard Venetians usually don't use them. Entry to palazzos? Ferries? Street coffees? Raise the damn prices! (Offer a highly discounted year pass to not affect locals).
Like come into the city? People aren't necessarily riding gondoliers. These are all independent businesses pricing things according to their own interests (as they can and should). The stated problem is that there are too many people coming in so they are directly addressing that behavior.
See also: the German "foreigner's toll road" scheme.
Tourism for the masses started in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Mass_tourism .
Atlantic City was a popular tourist city in the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_City,_New_Jersey#Proh...
In the UK at the same time, Blackpool "claimed around eight million visitors per year, three times as many as its nearest British rivals, still drawn largely from the mill towns of East Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackpool#Towards_the_present
My grandparents drove their entire family to the Grand Canyon back in the 1950s, and they were farmers/blue collar workers.
Instead of money, cultural sites could use knowledge to gatekeep. Require prospective visitors to pass a nontrivial quiz on the history and cultural significance of Venice to be able to enter. Take a short college course on the City and receive a lifetime pass. Those who expend the preparatory effort to truly appreciate Venice are permitted to physically visit the City, and the rest get access to streaming videos and stock photos into which to edit themselves.
Some sort of access control is needed. If you think today’s Venice is bad, wait until the Chinese tourists, with their exceptionally high tolerance for crowded conditions, start arriving en masse by rail. Congestion effects are nonlinear…
That is, the culture you likely refer to is the 'the culture of an upper class (an aristocracy) or of a status class (the intelligentsia)', quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture .
In the 1920s people went to Nashville to visit the Grand Old Opry and hear country music. People went to the Catskills to see vaudeville. How are these not examples of "cultural tourism" by the non-wealthy, pre-dating WWII?
19 million people went to the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1904. How is that not mass tourism?
> cultural sites could use knowledge to gatekeep
They certainly can. But there are many such ways to gatekeep. The article mention cash. What about "Tourists to Venice must be able to read and write Venetian"? The very choice of how to gatekeep reveals much the gatekeeper.
A question like "Which James Bond films were filmed in Venice?" focuses on a different culture than "What famous club-footed author swam the length of the Grand Canal and across the lagoon to the Lido?" (And both question set the focus on foreigners, rather than locals.)
A more practical set of gatekeeping questions might include: "It is illegal to feed the pigeons on St. Mark's Square. What is the fine? A) 50 euros, B) 100 euros, C) 200 euros, D) 500 euros".
> wait until the Chinese tourists ... start arriving en masse by rail
The xenophobic comment is uncalled for. Just how many Chinese people do you think will travel several days by train from China to visit Venice? And why Venice, when there are so many other places to visit which are closer?
> exceptionally high tolerance for crowded conditions
Quoting "Are neighbour tourists more sensitive to crowding? The impact of distance on the crowding-out effect in tourism" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151772...
] Some researchers claim that tourists from Asian countries, whose places of residence are commonly characterised by congestion, are more tolerant of crowding than those from Western countries (Pearce, 1995), yet contradictory findings are suggested by emerging studies. For example, Chinese tourists show unexpectedly sensitive attitudes and low tolerance of tourist crowding in China compared with Westerners (Jin & Pearce, 2011). In addition, in Taiwan, tourists from Japan, Korea, Singapore and the US have been found to be negatively affected by the large numbers of mainland Chinese tourists, while no significant impact has been found among tourists from Hong Kong, the UK and Australia (Chou et al., 2014; Su et al., 2012). These contradictions imply that the influence of cultural distance is more complicated than previously noted (Bi & Lehto, 2018).
Chinese tourists may be more likely to avoid a crowded Venice than American tourists.
Venice is an amazing city, and it's not as expensive as people think, if you plan to stay long term.
When the Covid-19 situation got better in early 2022, TONS of tourists came back, and Venice is now more crowded than it was before the pandemic.
Residents (of the historical city center, or the "main" Venice), down to a total of about 50,000 (from a peak of ~175,000 [0]), are really angry at the overcrowding and are looking for solutions.
In certain weekends this year, the number of visitors reached 130,000 per day, which is about twice as much as the city can support without deterioration of city life and services.
Entry tickets, if handled properly, could be a great way to fix the issue.
The current solution has some flaws, and I don't believe that it will solve the issue properly. (overnight visitors don't pay; ferry rides are not integrated in the ticket; etc).
I believe that the right structure should include a combination of:
1) expensive tickets (€50 per day per person) that allow you to come regardless of any other limitation.
2) advance purchase tickets (€5 per day per person)
3) progressive tickets (starting at €5 per day per person, but going as high as €25 when the number of visitors in a given day approaches 60,000).
Also, the parking system (Tronchetto and Piazzale Roma), owned by private companies, should introduce a similar progressive ticket, but the extra income should go to the municipality, not to the private company.
The extra money earned this way should go towards improving the logistics of the city, easing the pressure that tourism puts on the residents.
My 0.02.
[0]: https://allaboutvenice.com/venice-population/