Please sign in to post.
Posted by
1612 posts

It was paywalled for me but from other articles I've read I can guess some of the relevant points. I recall another article about Amsterdam last summer discussing that the goal wasn't to cut the tourism numbers, but to spread the tourists by promoting other locations in the Netherlands. I've been following this topic with interest in several locations that are discussing new ideas; Venice, Barcelona, Edinburgh...I'm curious how many will follow through and make significant changes to find a better balance for it's residents.

Posted by
4521 posts

An interesting article on their efforts. One of the biggest issues they face is the rowdiness of the crowds in the Red Light District and nearby areas, which severely affect quality of life or force residents out. Efforts had been underway before the pandemic to address that, with limited success. I compare that to the efforts made by places like Fort Lauderdale to limit the rowdy Spring Break crowds, which largely succeeded. Advocates for the prostitutes and coffee bars are claiming they are not part of the problem, but I'm not sure I buy that.

Another issue is short term rentals, which limit housing for residents and drive up housing costs. Those have been hitting legal roadblocks, according to the article. That is an issue many tourist-popular cities face. It also vastly expands a community's capacity for tourism, which may be a part of why tourist numbers have been exploding in recent years.

It will be interesting to see if the pandemic allows cities facing severe over-tourism to have a reset, and maybe come out of it with a more managed tourist industry.

Posted by
12141 posts

rental cars going for 1000/ a day or not available

Ufkak, That is a change! Drastic too and it happened QUICK!!! Two months ago my car in Hawaii cost $68 and I booked it the same day. Pretty amazing.

Another issue is short term rentals, which limit housing for residents
and drive up housing costs. Those have been hitting legal roadblocks,
according to the article. That is an issue many tourist-popular cities
face. It also vastly expands a community's capacity for tourism, which
may be a part of why tourist numbers have been exploding in recent
years.

This is very location specific. I doubt any two locations, while many may agree on limiting short term rentals, it isn’t always for the same reason. I only know one location well enough to be a tiny bit judgmental. In that one capital city the short term rentals rebuilt the city after 50 years of oppression. No one with any income at all wanted to live in the inner city because of the decay. Now they are renovated because the increased real estate value, partially the result of short term rentals, made it economically feasible to do the renovations. Now, rehabilitated there are some cries that local people who detested them 20 years ago, cant afford to live in the newly renovated inner city. Again, in large part due to tourism raising up the economy, people can afford to want those apartments. I doubt any of this applies to Amsterdam, just an observation that no two places are alike. Very little in life is ever black and white.

It will be interesting to see if the pandemic allows cities facing
severe over-tourism to have a reset, and maybe come out of it with a
more managed tourist industry.

One man’s over tourism is another man’s livelihood. Again, a very complex situation made worse it not well through. Close my short term rental and at a minimum two business on my street cease to exist. That’s maybe 25 employees. And no, there is no other work. Cut tourism by 20% and in this particular capital city and something in the neighborhood of 8% of the work force is out of business.

But I will admit, as an outsider, I would enjoy my trips a lot more if 20% of the tourist were gone and at the same time all my favorite businesses, bars and restaurants remained open.

Posted by
4950 posts

This, and many articles of the same topic, basically present the same problem, one without no real palatable solution.

The problem is an increasing number of travelers going to a limited number of destinations, or at least a number of which can only absorb a set amount.

London, Paris, and other cities see the same influx, but can absorb large numbers through spreading the traffic out and expansive resources (though each have complained of the same problems to some extent)

Probably the most effective efforts would be to spread the crowd out to other areas, but I agree with some in the article, the biggest problem is not sex tourists, rowdy parties, or drug addled tourists. I fortunately have been to Amsterdam a number of times over the years, and from 2000 to 2019 have seen the crowd volume rise, and the last time walked through the RLD at about 10:00 on a Friday night. It was basically shoulder to shoulder, traffic jams (of people) in some of the side streets, and it was all the typical tourist, not rowdy parties, the coffee houses only had light crowds, and while there were many gawkers, not too many customers for the ladies.

Days were the same in the rest of central Amsterdam, just lots of tourists, basically as you would see in Venice, or on the la Rambla in Barcelona, the Cinque Terre, etc.

I do think some of the measures they are taking are good, maybe not effective to control crowds, but needed.

Unfortunately, the only effective measures are not attractive. If you have a product in high demand, raise prices to meet the market, (which they are doing partly in restricting rentals and limiting hotel rooms) restrict entry, and reduce the "attractiveness" of the areas (Which they are doing by eliminating or reducing "tourist businesses") I suppose one method of reducing attractiveness would be to tear down some of those old buildings, fill in canals, and put up some practical concrete structures (you could make them look "quaint") to provide more local housing and business space.