Venice (Italy): serious rants about an empty Venice that cannot afford to go back to normal but should go back to better

Venice: sunny, silent and empty. Nothing hurts more than an empty Venice, but at the same time nothing is better than a narrow and deserted Venetian calle flooded by the sun. Nothing hurts more than an empty Venice, but at the same time nothing is better than a campo where a lonely wellhead stands out without the crowded constant flow of tourists.

Nothing hurts more than an empty Venice, but at the same time nothing is better than Ponte di Rialto without masses of tourists: on the ponte these days the only living thing is the glare of the sun on the closed shutters of the many jewelleries, blown glass and leatherware shops. 

Deserted Rialto Bridge in Venice

It is because there is nothing that for Venice is just good or just evil, so it has always been in her complex history, and so it is also for the post-Covid Venice tourism rebound.

After more than a year of Venice's closures and the absence of tourism, Venice can't take it anymore and wants to reopen. 

Empty Venice in the bright midday sunlight

Venice is thinking about restarting and the next spring and summer tourism and with it the economic speed recovery. In a year it is clear that Venice has swung from one extreme to the other: first millions of tourists every year, and then the total lack of tourists with the shutdown not only of shops and businesses, but also of museums, theaters and historical places. In short, an entire city on stand-by for more than a year. 

Lonely Campo San Silvestro and the Venetian wellhead 

Before, Venice was dying of tourism bulimia and disorders, while today it is starving for tourism and it is likely to die of hunger and thirst if the situation does not go back to normal. But what normal? First there was the alarm that Venice was being turned into the Italian Disneyland with levels of crazy overtourism, city degradation and off the scale tourists' carelessness. 

Cruise ships that plowed (and apparently they will continue plowing) the fragile waters of the Giudecca Canal hit the banks of the city avoiding some kind of tragedy, with all due respect to Gianni Berengo Gardin's photos who publicly denounced the passage of large ships in Venice. A mad thing to do even in better equipped cities. Crushed by mass tourisms and lack of care Venice had become a sort of Las Vegas with tourists' numbers that the city could not bear. 

View from Ponte delle Guglie on the Cannaregio Canal in Venice

Today in Covid times, there is the opposite alarm: that Venice will become the Desert of the Tartars snubbed by the tourist routes in search of lesser-known, less crowded and less touristy places.  

The beauty of Venice is not just the monuments, but also the Venetian identity that should be preserved in the local shops, in the craft activities, in the trades that are constantly disappearing: the shops of fake Carnival masks and Murano's blown glass gimmicky (not exactly made in Murano) have been popping up on the site of the butcher's, the local clothes shop or the artisan workshop.

Sotoportego del Banco Giro in Campo San Giacomo di Rialto in Venice

Is another type of tourism in Venice feasible in the post Covid era? 

Can the now urgent economic needs of those who live in Venice be reconciled with a more sustainable and liveable model as a tourist destination?

Can 22 million tourists a year be barred from the sinking the city? 

Can new tourism models be shaped?

Can we avoid the so-called flying visits of half a day-trippers, but above all, can the quality of Venice tourism bring an actual added value rather than just being an unaccountable exploitation of the city?

Can this emptiness teach us something on the future of Venice tourism?

Complaining about  the quality of tourism in Venice is not the solution, but the poor quality of tourism in Venice is a fact and it is an important observation of reality.

Unfortunately, the advent of low-cost tourism has also implied low-quality tourism, especially in Venice: if on the one hand the spread of low-cost tourism has allowed the spread of short visits in Venice, on the other hand it has inevitably lowered the quality as well as triggering an unhealthy relationship hit and run with the city.

Rethinking another type of tourism is the only solution for Venice

Given that Venice has experienced the worst, it is possible to rethink a more livable tourism-Venice relationship?

And above all the fundamental question is: does Venice need all this tourism? 

The problem must be reversed if the city is to be saved from decay and depopulation, by reconsidering the needs of Venice in the first place, and not the needs of tourists.

Does Venice need all this tourism?

Rethinking and changing the tourist flows, especially the hit and run visits, are the answers: the overcrowding of the places in relation to the capacity, the relationship with the inhabitants who live permanently in Venice, the incentive of local artisan activities instead of the bogus activities of the trinkets shops, and the management of public services (transport, garbage, etc.).

 

It is not enough to restrict access to Venice, it is necessary to completely rethink the quality of life in the city by promoting policies for the recovery of arts and crafts, the recovery sites of churches and abandoned historic sites which should be seen as a resource rather than a weight to sell off.

Can we promote genuine arts and crafts in Venice?

Venice should reconsider the things that it can influence: for example, the accommodation system such as hotels, b & bs, etc. and the policies associated with it. Venice should reconsider the capacities of restaurants and bars, the transportation and parking spaces. In short, Venice should have a say and affect those things that can actually change: the capacity and quality of Venice's services. 

What about the things that Venice cannot influence? 

Well, Venice cannot influence (except giving whopping fines) tourists' public decency and bad behaviour who have been caught  in sunbathing semi-naked in Piazza San Marco or in various corners of Venice. Would you in Times Square or in Picadilly Circus or in any other city square? Venice cannot teach those who practice parkour on the bridges, and eat laying down in the churchyards or take a dive from the bridges because it is hot and a bath in the Venetian canal helps to cool off the heat.

We cannot teach anyone how to manage garbage and avoid throwing their waste in the canals or leaving a pile of rubbish on the banks. It is common sense and respect for the city, but it is something that Venice cannot teach. And it is not a question of a punitive attitude or prudery towards tourists: respect should be part of global education, common to all, tourists and residents, beyond any culture difference. 

Venice is NOT a city like any other: it is a city with multiple but fragile resources.

Do we want to go back to this normal?

It is clear that it is the authorities' task to implement all the strategies and actions necessary to make tourism in Venice come back in a more liveable and more sustainable way, but all, Venetians and tourists alike, must also  play a role in a city that thrives on tourism. Venice does not want to die suffocated by bad habits, selfishness and inefficiencies.

While walking and ranting through Venice's deserted calli and lifeless bridges, I realise that I am not the only person who has been ranting about Venice's decadence. The other was a guy named Lord Byron and when it comes to giving vent to feelings, he knew it better.  Before anyone could even think of the Venice's tourism-related problems, back in 1818, he wrote his "Ode to Venice" in which he described many of the current fears for Venice: what's the use of Venice's conquests, riches and glory if we manage to reduce them to dust? What's the point in admiring (I should update the verb here with words such as Instagramming or blogging) Venice's architecture, history and art if we do nothing to prevent losing them?

Thanks for reading!

Arrivederci!

MarcoPoloSpirit