It seems that the residents of Venice are doing some soul searching, and will have to decide whether to go back to mass tourism (and the money it brings in) or a different model with less environmental damage. I'm sure it will be a very difficult decision for them - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venice-covid-tourism-economy-1.5636741 .
No doubt there will be other areas in Italy and other countries that are also struggling with a similar decision.
It seems like a struggle for the soul of the city, and Venice is not alone in this regard. With the rise of the middle class, particularly in Asia, there will be tens of millions of people added to the international travel pool.
The archipelago (not the city proper in the mainland where most people and non-tourism economic activity happens) is just an extremely expensive place to provide for comforts and expectations of modern life: water and sewage services, a modicum of handicap accessibility, IT infrastructure, fire and earthquake mitigation/prevention etc. The lagoon is naturally sinking, global warming makes water management more difficult, and in absence of tourism the place would be on a slow-paced decline like several mountainside hilly village that became economically obsolete with the dawn of modern agriculture 80-100 years ago (the ones that couldn't find a niche on winter sports, hiking etc).
A population decline from 150000 to 50000 is not completely extreme either, considering the archipelago will not be expanded with modern dredging: many medieval core of old Italian cities lost 30-40% of their population since the 1960s even in municipalities that grew a lot overall. This is mainly due to severe changes in the composition of households: few youngsters (despite stereotypes) really aspire to get married early and move their new spouse into their parents' house, more people relocate toward large metros in search of economic opportunities, the level of dwelling crowding that might have been normal after WW2 is today seen as a precarious situation. Living in multi-family houses that share a single bathroom and some larger kitchen faciltiies with other 3-4 families is also a thing of the past - and should be lauded as progress.
I read this this morning as well, and accepted that there is a lot more than tourism affecting the decline in 'locals' choosing to live in Venice. As stated, there is a lot of responsibility trying to maintain those old homes. If you do read some of the books based in Venice, the bureaucracy alone would send me scurrying away. Consider your own situation. Would you prefer to live in an old high maintenance building where codes don't allow renovations for extra plumbing, safe electrical and IT range in an affordable and timely manner? No elevator? No AC? Kids not having access to greenspace? Why not move to the 'burbs' on the mainland where these are feasible - and commute in to work? Plenty of North Americans do just this.
Same goes with any other ancient city. There comes a time it isn't sustainable for the general population. Tourists love it, but then let their dollars maintain them. Similar to the ability to maintain art and endangered animals. Their value is the ability to generate dollars on an ongoing basis. Once that money isn't coming in - well, you know where I am going.....
Also, the realist in me recognizes that if there are no members of the local government living on the island, then you lose your best advocate so it will be an uphill battle. We would hate it, but is it so difficult to imagine that the future of Venice may become one that has limited hours and charges an admission for entry? A sad day, but eventually the physical sustainability may make it too hard to actually be a living city.
Same goes with any other ancient city. There comes a time it isn't
sustainable for the general population. Tourists love it, but then let
their dollars maintain them.
Makes me think of Carcassonne and Dubrovnik as two highly touristy areas with declining populations. Neither are sinking, but I wonder if its residents have to continually battle it's own governments for non-tourist issues such as development permits. If I remember correctly from my visit last year, the population within the walls of Carcassonne is down to about 50. A google search of Dubvrovnik shows only about 1500 in Old Town.
Living in multi-family houses that share a single bathroom and some larger kitchen faciltiies with other 3-4 families is also a thing of the past
Except for farmhouses where families of sharecroppers lived in poverty, it was a thing of the past after WWI.
And who would ever bring his/her spouse to live with his/her parents?! Young Italians "marry" (aka move in together) later and later precisely because they can't afford the costs of renting and, as temporary workers, they can't get a mortgage.
Does Venice have any source of earnings which are not connected directly or indirectly to tourism?
Does Venice have any source of earnings which are not connected directly or indirectly to tourism?
If you mean the Historic center (aka the floating district) Ca' Foscari University and the Morosini Preparatory School for the Navy come to my mind.
Blockquote
Does Venice have any source of earnings which are not connected directly or indirectly to tourism?
Blockquote
Do you consider the Biennale to be 'tourism'?
From a previous comment.
“Does Venice have any source of earnings which are not connected directly or indirectly to tourism?”
Marine research
Boat building
Horticulture
Biennale(s)
Film festival
Education
Art restoration
Research facilities (State archive, Cini Foundation, libraries)
Education (English as a second language)
Military base on an outer island
Yacht marina.
Bunch of writers working there, including a close friend.
BlockquoteMarine research
Boat building
Horticulture
Biennale(s)
Film festival
Education
Art restoration
Research facilities (State archive, Cini Foundation, libraries)
Education (English as a second language)
Military base on an outer island
Yacht marina.
Bunch of writers working there, including a close friend.
So, basically, no, they do not. None of the above are major income sources as a percentage of GDP.
There are so many unused buildings in Venice, just waiting for something to happen. A place in Calle Lunga San Barnaba opposite No 2878 has not had the door opened in over a decade, likely there are newspapers lying around, headlined JFK Morte, Jacki Lamentare.
No 1 Santa Croce where Banksy did his recent “Girl with distress flare” is similar. Prime position, good for a number of uses, was scaffolded out several years ago, now derelict.
Renovate them for student housing as was done recently to the monastery near the Gesuati, or renovate the ex-convent/osperdale on Rio Tera Ognissanti in Dorsoduro. Inject a bit of life.
Or the Commune could just tax unoccupied premises to reflect the lost opportunity cost.
what about the shipyards? New construction and refitting and converting. There are always several large ships in the slips and dry docks. Contributes millions to the economy.
Marghera shipyards (located at Marghera, Venice) belong to Fincantieri, which is based in Trieste. Guess where most of the money goes. And, according to there company report, their corporate income was a NEGATIVE 148 Million Euros in 2019 (which was supposed to be a good year). Any guesses as to how long it's going to stay around?
The biggest industries on the mainland (of Venice) are chemical, oil, and power plants. Amazingly these are not the pollution problem that tourists are (sarcasm).
"It seems that the residents of Venice are doing some soul searching, and will have to decide whether to go back to mass tourism (and the money it brings in) or a different model with less environmental damage." I believe this to be an entirely wrong way to frame the issue. The residents of Venice have almost no say as to what their local governance is. They are orphans in their own City. Had a long and real conversation with a young gondolier, who told me he didn't think any of the locals had any say any more about anything. He can't live in Venice, its too expensive, so he lives with his extended family on one of the other lagoon islands, that so far has not been over taken by overtourism and foreign ownership. And then he also admitted that it was just a matter of time, before he would have to move his family to the mainland somewhere and go back to working for Brube Boat Works. This came from a native born GONDOLIER, from an old family with a history of gondoliering, that had worked his butt off since he was a small child to earn that title: All he ever wanted to be was, "A fish. I can not live with out the water." Maybe lost slightly in translation, but I understood exactly what he was saying.
The gondola industry in Venice is problematic, given that it is entirely dependent on tourism (save for the traghetti ferrying pax across the Grand Canal in three or four places). The last private gondolier worked for Peggy Guggenheim andshe died in 1979, her gondola is in the Naval Museum, so for the last 40 years, gondoliers have been at the behest of the tourist trade. There are about 400 licenced gondoliers.
Living on an outer island may not be all that bad, even Burano needs about a 3/4 hour commute to Venice proper and there is new-ish housing on the adjacent island, Mazzorbo. (Brutalist architecture painted in Burano colours). Living on Vignole would be pretty crap as there is nothing there save for horticulture, San Erasmo more possible as there is a supermarket and a couple of bars. Certosa, nope, no housing there since the barracks built by the Austrians when there was an ammo factory there were demolished.
was a NEGATIVE 148 Million Euros in 2019
Don't be naive, Fincantieri's order backlog was worth 34 billion (note the B) Euro in 2019.
Guess where most of the money goes.
It's the state owned company that, among other things, builds the ships for the Italian Navy (plus the US and the Egypt Navy as secondary customers). The money go to Rome except for the IRaP tax revenues that by law can go only to the Region where the operating offices and the production facilities are. Since the IRaP is calculated on revenues and Fincantieri had revenues for 5.85 billions (again, note the B) Euro in 2019, the Veneto region should be quite satisfied of getting the % of 5.85 billions depending on the Shipyards near Venice.
(which was supposed to be a good year).
2018 was a good year for sure, in fact they made a profit of 71 million Euro.
Any guesses as to how long it's going to stay around?
I guess at least as long as the Wisconsin subsidiary of Fincantieri will finish to build the new 759 millions $ fast frigate for the US Navy. I guess Fincantieri will stay around even some time more if your admirals will like this first ship and they will ask Fincantieri to build 9 more.
Or the Commune could just tax unoccupied premises to reflect the lost opportunity cost.
Thank God, an Italian Comune (note spelling) can't create new taxes.
The reason for Venice buildings to remain empty is always the same: the Ministry for Cultural Heritage did not let the Hedge Fund that owns those buildings transform them into hotels with thousands of rooms. Or into a luxury real estate for middle-aged UK singers. Since the value of buildings in central Venice can only increase even when they remain empty and dilapidated, the above mentioned funds just wait for the next Minister in the hope that he/she will change the law.
I happily stand corrected on the spelling of Comune, so thanks Dario.
When I wrote about re-purposing unused buildings in Venice, I was not thinking of creating yet more hotels. I was more thinking of the work done at the Gesuiti monastery in Canareggio. The monastery was vacant for years, and has had a refit. Turned into low cost accomodation mostly for students, with some visitors. I have spoken with people working at the Homo Faber exhibition, also the Biennale and they were accomodated at the Gesuati. Short term visitors, and those exhibitions could not happen without low cost accomodation for attendants.
The Ognissanti nunnery in Dorsoduro could have the same treatment.
