I couldn't believe my ears the other day when listening to the BBC World Report on NPR they had a U.K. economist who was talking about how to preserve Venice and his recommendation was to turn it into a theme park and charge an entry fee!
Now before i dismiss this out of hand what he went on to say made some sense:
Venice is so much in need of a massive influx of funds to save it - not only from sinking (under the weight of tourism some say) but to keep its many crumbling buildings in good repair.
He points out that Venice currently is rapidly losing its role as a real city and creating a theme park with a Disney-like admission fee is the way to go. Currently so-called 'white' flight - a name garnered apparently from the American experience of whites fleeing large cities to suburbs - that most of Venice's bona fide residents have fled to the Mestre area on the mainland for several reasons:
to have better access to cars, real shopping, modern housing, football and recreational fields and parks, etc.
and because they have been priced out of living in Venice where, the U.K. wag said, that more and more old houses are being bought up at high prices and turned into boutique hotels, fine restaurants have displaced family trattoria, prestigious addresses for offices of internet businesses and large corporations - and the city has been appealing more and more to the convention and congress business.
The major problem he says of course is the threatened flooding on Venice - not just the more and more occasional flooding that bothers todays tourists who have to walk on planks in lower lying places like St Marks Square but a whole inundation that many forcast when a weird high tide is combined with a flood of water coming into the lagoon from the mainland.
The ballyhooed MOSES project formulated years ago and studied and studied may or may not work according to experts - these huge gates that would block off incoming high tides from the sea may well also have deleterious effects on the lagoon. But something must be done and the UK economists says the only way to raise sufficient money is to charge an entry fee and even on some days restrict the number of tourists coming in. (Already Venice has at times restricted the number of tour buses allowed in on busy days, where the main gauntlet between the bus station/train station area and St Marks Square is oft in summer literally elbow to elbow.)
The gist of his argument seems to be that if Venice has really ceased to be a real city it's already a theme park of sorts - admission fee would also be a free museum pass and he suggests that those who 'book' three months in advance either get free or greatly reduced admission.
Florence and Venice, he says, years ago considered an admission fee and dropped the idea.
My opinion is to revolt to any such fee - that the Italian government should belly up to the bar and pay any tab for saving Venice as it brings in tons of tourist money to Italy.
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON VENICE'S PROBLEMS AND WHETHER IT SHOULD CHARGE ADMISSION LIKE A THEME PARK:

>>"the Italian government should belly up to the bar and pay any tab for saving Venice as it brings in tons of tourist money to Italy."<<

Unfortunately the Italian goverment never seems to have enough money to fund preservation of the country's historical treasures... perhaps if they would quit funding Aitalia? ;-)

We were quite saddened to see the vines and vegetation literally toppling walls in Pompeii. Apparently there is only money enough to keep the most visited parts of Pompeii in good condition

Ah, to be king for a day. Dictator!

I would definitely restrict non-resident accesss. I wouldn't mind a law saying barring entry to the city except for those who can demonstrate proof they have a 3-day hotel booking. No tour buses allowed.

I would provide incentives to young couples to move into Venice, and likewise artists.

Admission fee? I think I'd call it a vistor's tax, and possibily stick it on people's hotel bill.

I'd try to work out a deal to create a computer-precision replica of the canals and facades of Venice somewhere in the desert near Las Vegas so that people who go to Venice to "just wander around and eat gelato" can do so for a fraction of the cost and impact on the real Venice.

Nessundorma--you rock! Great ideas.

Since means of access into the city is restricted to boats, why not charge a tax on the first ticket into town from the airport, train station, cruise ship, etc. Don't you think that at 5 euro a head they could raise in excess of 20,000,000 euro a year for preservation?

They've got it-The Venetian Casino and Hotel in Vegas!But trust me,it may seem like Venice-gondoliers and a fake Piazza di San Marco,but it's not even close.

Do you have ANY IDEA how insulting that whole conference in London was to the Venetians? (the economist in question was present on a recent London panel with the theme of whether Venice should be saved, and how-held a few weeks ago).

Believe me, it was received VERY coldly -il Gazzettino, Venice's main daily, reported on the whole matter in a most sarcastic manner-insinuating that the conference was held in conjunction with recent Venetian palazzo estate ads in London newspapers by British estate agencies eager to create some PR in order to drive up the asking prices.

Venice, and how to "save" it, is a VENETIAN matter, for the Veneto region, and the Italian Govt. to solve-NOT meddling British economists with their deliberately provocative, and nonsensical "theories."

Venice has done a pretty good job of hanging on through all the wars, pestulence, and economic hard times in the last 1,000 years or so-I'd bet good money that we'll be seeing a Venice in pretty much the same way for at least another 500 years!

As for an "admission" fee-Venice, Florence San G., and some of the other so called "art cities" of Italy are seriously thinking of implementing a tourist tax in the near future.

Good thing too-these cities get hoards of "day-tripper" tourists from developing European countries, who come, walk around San Marco, peel their hard-boiled eggs in the Piazza and then leave, after having checked off Venice on the sight-seeing agenda, and leaving their trash for the City to clean up, without spending a cent.

This is why Venice is targeting the huge American market right now-Americans DO spend money in the city-and they want a more high profile PR campaign in the US in order to reach more of that market and bring it over.

By the way, a vote taken after this ridiculous conference was held came out in favor of "saving" Venice and not as a theme park.

GirlTravel: i think you've changed my opposition to an entry fee - yes the hoardes of day trippers especially who use cause such a mess as to refuse, etc. should pay some kind of tax - yes tax and not call it an entry fee!

I too believe that all those that come off the ship and invade Venice for a few hours should pay an entrance fee. That would, without a doubt, generate millions of dollars a year. I will be traveling to Venice next year and will be staying for a few days and wouldn't mind putting out some extra money. The trip is already costing a fortune what's a few more dollars?

I don't know if Venice still has their fundraiser but in the pass a visitor could donate money to the "Save Venice" charity (or a similar name). A nice thing to do if you really love Venice as I do. One location that accepted donations was Harry's Bar.

i agree that you should have to show proof of lodging and i would pay a entry fee if needed.

Is &quot;proof of lodging&quot; going to guarantee that those people who are staying there won't leave any trash behind in San Marco, will refrain from eating bananas, and all those other terrible things (besides leaving their <b>money</b> behind along with all that other &quot;trash&quot that these infamous &quot;day-trippers&quot; do?

If the answer is &quot;yes&quot; then there's this canal in Venice I can sell you, cheaply.

I think an entry fee is an excellent idea to generate money to preserve the city. But not an addmission fee in the context of a theme park, but rather a &quot;user fee&quot; like national parks often charge. As has been mentioned, it could easily be charged upon arrival which would include all the egg-peelers and tour bus groups who flock back to the mainland for their included meals and hotels.

Dukey, I think the idea of requiring proof of lodging was to ensure that people coming into Venice are infact staying there and spening $ in the city. Many day-trippers DO spend $ in the city, so it isn't a fool-proof idea. I think the user fee is a better one. Maybe it could even be waived if you had proof of lodging. . .

FWIW, 85% of visitors to Venice are there less than one day and spend less than 15 Euro (and that includes transit, admissions, EVERYTHING!).

Re those &quot;hoards of day-tripper tourists from developing European countries&quot; who drop eggshells, banana peels, cigarette butts and gelato drippings and gum.

I dearly wish I could say I had not seen American, British, French and Japanese tourists -- and wait: Italian tourists!!!! -- doing just such things, but I can't.

Nor do I believe that having to show proof that you are staying for at least 3-days will mean no more egg shells and banana peels and cigarette butts and gelato drippings on the stones of Venezia. It will just cut the number of people going there by 75 percent.

I actually think Venice should be funded through the UN or some other international body, along with a number of other important sites. I don't think the UN should be declaring sites &quot;World Heritage sites&quot; without doing something to raise the money to support them. Since I'd rather not take away money from vaccinating children in 3rd world countries to save artworks, a tourist tax is fine with me -- although I would prefer a VAT on hotels and restaurants to target those with money, not students, etc.

Tourists (of all stripes) will still drop garbage, obviously a fee won't stop that, but it will provide some funds to pick it up!

eggshells huh?
Never saw any of them around Venice.

It is amazing that people still litter in this day and time.

What are the cruise ships paying to pull into port?
GirlTravel was eloquent with her response and I am almost thinking the British World Report sounded like a satirical joke. 8-X
I'm also surprised at the numbers of &quot;day trippers&quot;. I can only guess they're pouring off the cruise ships that continue to be built bigger and better and holding more and more tourists.

Eventually the cost of flying will slow some of the travelers down as it did in the past. Only since internet access and cheap fares have we seen such hordes of tourists around the world. I for one will be sad when this happens because I want my second trip to Venice next year!

I think that we should put a wall around it, a roof over it, and not let anyone in, except for authorized museum personnel.

Everyone else can look at it on TV.