More Europe travel changes.....

Good overview and restrictions will increase rapidly.

For a lot of top destinations tourism is like an annual summer Scrooge - or worse.

it's getting to be ridiculous in some areas and has me having second thoughts about visiting certain places.

I now look for smaller, less visited areas.

And definitely not visiting during the summer.

ridiculous in some areas

What do you mean by that? Any example for it? Just interested what you mean.

First, you could be reading about a vocal miniority. No way to know because the author made no attempt to discover the majority perception or desire in the situation. So I am always a bit suspect of what "the people" really think.

Second, the mere fact that it is that crowded, and that unremarkable, strikes it off my list; regardless of the truth of how welcome I would be.

There are a number of, in my opinion, "must see" locations in the world. "Must See" despite the fact of the crowds. You just have to manage it the best you can, but they are still worth the effort ... Rome for instance.

But beyond those I wonder why people are so timid at exploring the edges. 98% of Europe is still open and waiting to be enjoyed without crowds and tourist prices. The problem isnt with the tourist crowds, it is with the tourist decisions.

We are in our late 70s and lived overseas as well as travelled to all the continents but Antartica.

I started traveling to Europe in 1981 when I took a job in Saudi Arabia. Since then, I have visited 81 foreign countries.
The main differences between then and now:

1) Decades ago, even in the 1990s or even 2000s, you didn't have to book venues in advance. Even the Sistine Chapel was wide open. Now, most of the best venues, you must book in advance. This is one reason we don't do trips on our own anymore. We now take guided tours where everything is booked for the group, including hotels, transport and venues.

2) The volume of tourists at many places is so bad that it significantly reduces the ability to get around and enjoy some locations. We just came back from a Gate 1 Travel tour from Barcelona to Girona, the to Carcarassone France, then Toulouse, Bordeaux and Biarritz France, San Sebastian and Bilbao Spain. Then ending in Madrid. Girona, Spain had a festival going on the day we visited and it was so crammed with local folks that it was hard just to move down the street through the city. Barcelona's Sagrada Familia was so crowded I was glad to finish that venue (perhaps it was that I had been there twice before).

3) Many great places in Europe, especially in the south, has be terribly scarred with massive graffiti. Coming into Paris, Madrid, Barcelona and other great places you are slapped with gross visuals of massive amounts of graffiti. Even sacred places like Venice have received these scars as well. Sorry, I am aware that graffiti was really bad in the USA some decades ago, but now doesn't seem nearly as bad as it is in Europe today. In the USA it was linked to criminal gangs. This reduces the value in visiting historical places.

4) I understand the need for some localities to reduce being overrun by tourists, but it is a double edges sword. If the main reason the economy is great at a location is tourism, the locals have to be careful not to overdo restrictions. Not sure how this is handled.

4) I understand the need for some localities to reduce being overrun
by tourists, but it is a double edges sword. If the main reason the
economy is great at a location is tourism, the locals have to be
careful not to overdo restrictions. Not sure how this is handled.

Exactly. I am living in a city that is being renovated on tourist dollars. A very significant percentage of the population survives on tourist dollars. Even those that dont realize it, need it because they benefit on a second or third tier. Fortunately my city is large enough that the tourism is being absorbed in 90% of the city.

But thats why i am cautious of the anti-tourism mantra. Easy to look from the outside and say its bad. But if I were to encourage people to go elsewhere, do I have the slightest idea of the colateral damage? No.

How is it handled? The best we have is the democratic process. Not perfect, but generally it does a fair job. My city fell victim to the anit-short term rental mantra and by and large it did a lot more harm than good. But the democratic process kicked in and things are being backed up a little at a time. Soon, hopefully, they find the happy medium. But as a guest here, not my place to presume and advocate one way or another.

What do you mean by that? Any example for it? Just interested what you mean.

Ridiculous as in the "crowds." Some cities and heavily visited areas are so bad you can hardly move. (As mentioned in the article.)

And it's even worse when the cruise ships come in with the daytrippers.

I can understand why some areas are limiting the number of people entering, charging for that right and discouraging cruise ships.

You can't get rid of tourism completely as the money spent is important. But they can't allow it to destroy the areas as well.

But they can't allow it to destroy the areas as well.

I'm not against tourism but it shouldn't be a free for all

Yes, it does appear that some places are facing hardships due to tourism. It would be crazy to imagine otherwise. So I don’t disagree with either comment. But I don’t think, sitting in my home in Texas or even here in Budapest, I have any right to dictate or intentionally influence through my words or actions those things that should be dealt with by the local population in a manner they feel is in their best interest. What is “destruction” anyway? Maybe what I see as destruction they see as prosperity? And why shouldn’t tourism in Tirana be free for all? Okay, you don’t mean Tirana, then where have you chosen to draw the line on behalf of the local populations? I don’t begin to presume that my definition based on my values and my culture should be reflective of the inhabitants of Rome or Sofia.

And if one is all knowing, what is the solution? Seems to me the only thing that will work is limiting tourism to those with more wealth (Tourist Taxes). Maybe a lottery? But we don’t want that do we?

So, I choose my travel upon the conditions that I will most enjoy. I think that’s where the forum is useful. Bringing to light the conditions so we can choose; and leave politics to those that know best, the locals. To be honest, the locals might think its disrespectful to for us to presume the need or impact on their behalf so maybe the discussion should stop at; I read that groups were protesting this that or the other thing about tourism and you might want to look into that before you plan to visit .... "

Maybe I’m reading this article wrong, but it sounds like it is tourists who just want to party. People found urinating on the street, climbing on monuments, sleeping on the street, entering people’s homes, should be not only fined, but sent back home to their country, immediately. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior, ever.
I do not think a 5€ fee to enter Venice will deter many people. A 100€ fee might do it.
But, it is up to the local governments to put restrictions on new construction, AirB&B conversions, etc. The bottom line is it’s always about the money.

Forbes or Business Insider or other "clickbait" sites are always a challenge to judge "real" vs "hype".

For sure places like Venice or Amsterdam or other compact touristed areas are struggling with crowding. But Europe is a relatively large place, so while millions may want to see the Mona Lisa each year (Grand Canyon, Zion, Yosemite, Disney World, etc.), Paris (and Europe) as a whole can "handle" the load. As travelers, we need to decide is a one hour line is too long or a $300 concert ticket too much, because around the corner from the huge line for a museum/ride is a place with little or no line. The night of the Taylor Swift concert, there is also a dozen other live music performances - some for the price of a cocktail.

More planning is spot on. More money in some cases is true too but luckily way more in one's control (especially with the more planning bit).

The complaints from popular tourist destinations about "too many tourists" seem to me much like the complaints from very-highly-paid people about their lucrative jobs that they don't like.

The population of Florida is about 23 million people. In the winter months approximately 122 million people visit the state. Many full time residents are happy when May rolls around and traffic returns to "normal". There is a summer tourist season as well albeit a smaller influx. However, full time permanent residents realize tourism is a major part of the local economies.

I guess I am confused by this hand wringing about "over tourism". Wasn't it just 4 short years ago everyone had sympathy for hotels and restaurants in Europe during the pandemic because travel was way down?

Tourism will continue to be heavy because more and more people have money to travel. The standard of living is increasing for many people in this world no matter what the media and politicians tells us. Otherwise, where are all these people coming from?

I understand the nuisance of tourist overcrowding, but I can assure all those complaining that if tourism drops off considerably, their standard of living locally will become much more expensive. Just look at what happened in the US when industries left localities like steel mills, etc. Tourism is an industry and if Venice and other cities who complain want that industry to be less robust, they better have an industry ready to take its place.

Threadware, exactly.

If they dont want the tourists, just tax them away. Its easy to implement a 50 euro tourist tax on ever hotel room. But small fees are just to increase revenue; which is fine and fair. This is why when I read the articles that show the anti-tourism protesters I have to ask myself, are they in the majority or the minority in their community? The majority could certainly institute a change.

I wish they would add $10 to the tourist tax in my city. I want the tourists, but I dont believe $10 will have any impact on the tourism and the $20+ million it would raise every year could do a lot of good in improving local infrastructure (which incidentially serves the tourists too).

Again, their politics, not my worry. Follow the laws, pay the fees and taxes and enjoy if thats where you want to go. No guilt necessary.

It looks like Lauterbrunnen is going ahead with their plans to charge a fee for day trippers......

https://www.timeout.com/news/another-european-village-is-imposing-an-entry-fee-on-tourists-052424

Those who plan to stay there for a few days won't have to worry about the extra fee.

Much like the Italian city, Lauterbrunnen’s entry fee will only apply
to visitors coming for the day. ‘The exception would be guests who
have booked an offer such as a hotel or an excursion or who arrive by
public transport,’ explained Mayor Karl Näpflin, according to the
Daily Mail.

This is about generating revenue. It won't have any meaningful impact on tourism.

The budget airlines have contributed to the problem. Europeans can fly anywhere for dirt cheap now whereas before they were confined to a limited train circle or they had to shell out a fortune for a ticket on Lufthansa, KLM, etc. Now they can pay $30 on Ryanair and cram seven drinking buddies into an AirBnB so they can have a weekend of drunken debauchery away from home.

Worse yet, a couple can take a long romantic weekend at the beach or a family can have some special time together before school starts, or an old fart can go fly fishing. Just terrible!

Even with the Discount Airlines, if a community wanted to curb it, just levy a $100 airport tax. Just not in my town, I love the wealth the tourists bring. Means more streets get repaired and more good restaurants to serve locals that make money off the tourists.