My family and I are taking our first trip to Italy mid-March. Our plan is to take 2 weeks leisurely moving from Rome to Florence and finishing in Venice. With the recent reports of exceptional flooding in Venice (nearly 6 feet), we are wondering if anyone has any insight or updates on if this should concern us?
We are trying to figure out if we should go ahead and change our plans to stay longer in Tuscany, or if we should be fine.
I found this on Google
https://www.tripsavvy.com/best-time-to-visit-venice-1548173
"October through January is the typical high water season, though flooding can occur at any time during the year."
I might wonder whether most of the damage will be repaired by then, not sure how long it take them to recover. Best best would be to get input from someone who has visited since the recent floods.
Also, I suggest starting in Venice rather than ending there. The airport is a long journey away and flights out of Venice tend to leave really early. You could find yourself catching an expensive 4 a.m. water taxi in the dark.
I was in Venice end of January, and we were walking on wooden sidewalks on St. Marks Square.
But it's doubtful that middle of March will see the same conditions.
it's tidal and it happens twice a day since the moon has decided to be our neighbour. It's the southern winds blowing north that cause high tides and nobody can predict what the winds will do months in advance. Since San Marco square is the lowest point of Venice, staying far from it is the first thing to do to avoid high tides.
Venetians not working in tourism are quite amused by the drama created by foreign press. The remaining 99% are going to throw US journalists into the lagoon.
For what regards tourists, it takes a couple of days to "recover", there are tons of webcams showing it. The sun shines, the stuff dries and the city has "recovered". Venetians are quite used to these tides, they have been living on a floating city for 1,599 years after all.
I was in Venice one week after the worst of the recent floods. We were worried that it would be like visiting a disaster zone, but it wasn't at all. There was only a little evidence that anything out of the ordinary had happened the week before. Only a handful of businesses were closed; the vast majority of shops and restaurants were open for business as usual, as were all the "sights" that we saw. Some buildings showed signs of having sustained more lasting damage (to floor tilework, etc.), but there was nothing that had much of an effect on our experience as casual tourists.
By the way, the water level is measured with respect to a "zero" that is well below the street surface anywhere in the city. St. Mark's Square, the lowest point in Venice, only begins to flood when the water level reaches 80 cm, and ground level in other parts of the city is significantly higher than that. So when you saw reports of the water level having reached 187 cm (a bit more than 6 feet), that doesn't mean that Venice was 6 feet underwater. At worst, it was 3 1/2 feet (which, to be sure, was bad enough). Here is a good illustration of what the tide levels look like at various points in the city.
I wouldn't worry about alta acqua in March. It's a fall-winter thing.
Acqua Alta is caused by the simultaneous confluence of 3 phenomena:
1. High tide (which happens twice a day and is caused by astronomical factors.
2. Strong “Scirocco” winds. Scirocco is a Mediterranean wind that blows toward northwest and pushed the waters of the Adriatic Sea toward Venice, causing a sea swell. It’s called Scirocco because it comes from the general direction of where Syria is.
3. Abundant rain which cause rivers flowing into the Venetian lagoon to pour significant quantities of water, causing also an increase in the lagoon level.
If the 3 events happen in March, you have Acqua Alta in March.
Below is the statistical distribution of the Acqua Alta (above 110cm) by month, based on the statistical record dating back from 1872 to today (courtesy of the City of Venice):
