[inglor_cz]

I just visited Venice. The old city does not really have any economy outside tourism. There is a naval academy at one of the outer islands, but that is it. The rest of the old city is just one big tourist trap, end of story. All everyday activity moved to the mainland (Mestre). What an end to an ancient merchant republic - selling themselves.

Maybe this is an unescapable consequence of globalization and specialization. We have grown accustomed to the facts that the best microchips are made in Taiwan and the most influential software corporations reside in Silicon Valley. Perhaps some cities are destined to be tourist traps and nothing else. Many people want to visit Prague, Florence or Mecca; no one wants to go to Gary, Indiana.

Remember: the global tourist class is destined to grow. As numerous Asian nations are slowly (or faster) climbing towards the developed status (India, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc.), the # of people who want to travel and have the means to do so will rise enormously.

15 million people visit Rome yearly - now. It might be 50 million in 2050.

Edit: this comment attracted at least two downvotes. I am not too salty about it, but I would like to know why you think I am misinformed/wrong. Don't just downvote - argue, please.

I don't particularly like human mobs in tiny medieval streets either, but I believe the global trend does not depend on what I like or not.

[carlob]

> I just visited Venice. The old city does not really have any economy outside tourism.

That's just not true. My brother went to university in Venice a few years ago and the tourists and their traps concentrate in a few hotspots. It's true that some parts have completely been eaten up by tourism, but tourists hardly wander away from the few streets that connect the main sights.

> 15 million people visit Rome yearly - now. It might be 50 million in 2050.

I think by 2050 we will have to reckon with the true costs of flying, large swaths of the global South will not be livable anymore and a lot of people will be forced to move to cooler climates.

[inglor_cz]

I wandered quite far from the main connecting streets and I never encountered: a school, a dentist's, a lawyer office etc. Come to think of it, I never saw a local child there, or a mother with a pram.

What I encountered, even far from the main thoroughfares, were AirBnBs and restaurants with multilingual menus.

The only object that I saw and that was unambiguously not-touristy was a naval academy.

[carlob]

Well a pram would not be very practical in Venice:)

[carlosjobim]

>large swaths of the global South will not be livable anymore and a lot of people will be forced to move to cooler climates.

The global North is unlivable for most of the year. Winter as a phenomena is a form of natural disaster, making it impossible to grow food and energy intensive for humans to survive.

[usrusr]

Venice is particularly difficult because of the lack of any in-between. Rome on the other hand can easily fit those millions into an authentic self, because there's so much local life around the tourist hotspots, with a natural blend in between. And tourism is authentic Rome anyways, it would not be Rome without. In Rome tourism is not even a modern invention, back when it was still called "pilgrimage" English and Welsh kings have made that trip between battling Vikings, it's that old.

In smaller Italian towns I have seen AirBnBs that I'd want to grant a "maybe it's not all bad" exception: old town flats that are basically museums to live in. A permanent resident would likely want modernize quite drastically, but tourists interested in the past can be the perfect solution to keep the legacy setup maintained. But that should be easy enough to regulate, plenty of existing cultural heritage protection schemes to tie in with.

[mantas]

This fucks over both tourists and locals. The legit stuff is being killed and people come to see outer shell at best. And be ripped off.

What's the point of traveling when all you see around is other tourists and it's just a collective ripoff experience?

It's sort of like F1. Best experience is at home watching on TV. Or really really really expensive. Going cheap route is just cargo cult for the sake of a worthless picture. Going to a tiny local event is likely to be so much better on many fronts. Aside from bragging rights to other cargoculters.

[inglor_cz]

I had similar thoughts on my way. I tried to compensate by visiting not-so-wellknown locations such as Ostia Antica, the ancient port of Rome, which is most of the time reasonably empty.

And yet, there is something magical about walking around the ruins in Forum Romanum or seeing the Dome of Florence towering over you, all the people notwithstanding. The touch of ancient marble, the smell in the air, the heat of the early May Italian sun, the reverbation of ambient sounds in an ancient amphitheatre, all this cannot really be "tasted" in the virtual space.

I am personally torn on this, seeing both the good and the bad things.

[mantas]

I get your point. But, to be honest, what portion of the crowd take it in this way? Instead if taking a selfie and moving on to the next hotspot? Somehow from this crowd I usually hear reviews of restaurants and hotels rather than out-of-body transcendental experiences like yours.

I agree such experiences are awesome. But IMO 1) you've to prepare yourself for such trip and get yourself immersed in that context (be it historical or cultural) 2) have a proper setting to get into mood. Which is quite a task in peak season in many hotspots... At the same time, you don't need top-tier hotspots for that. Once you're prepared, there're lots and lots of places off the beaten path that are likely to offer better overall experience than top-tier places.

IMO there're the good parts for immersive experiences. But, unfortunately, the crowds seem to apply very consumerist fast travel approach. It just became too cheap (frequently by externalising the costs) and many people don't take it seriously.

[atleastoptimal]

Doesn't matter, the market still drives towards the brand names, even if they're a shell of their former selves. Lamenting the lost authentic past is for DFW wannabees. The Nouveau Riche masses will flock to the neolib Meccas to christen their legitimacy.

[namaria]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think herd mentality fits better then cargo cult.

[thinkindie]

while that's true - you can't increase the number of tourists indefinitely. There are limits to infrastructure (airports, trains, hotels, restaurants). Therefore travelling long distance or to popular destinations will get way more expensive, and people will explore more outside of the popular destination or will travel closer to home.

[inglor_cz]

Absolutely, yes. Medieval cities have an upper limit to them, and that upper limit is fairly close. (Already exceeded in Dubrovnik.)

We will see high tourist taxes introduced all over.

I wonder if the cities blessed/cursed with an enormous influx of people willing to pay high tourist taxes just to see them will develop something akin to "Dutch disease" = basically stagnation and corruption based on certain income regardless of quality of governance, which disincentizives competition, learning, investment etc.

The original concept of Dutch disease is based on resource-rich states, but being touristically attractive is a kind of "natural" resource too. As long as places like Rome can prevent street crime and keep the monuments from falling apart, the crowds will come, even if the local town hall consisted of mediocre politicians.

Mafia is also known to prey on tourist establishment. If the main lucrative attribute of your pizzeria is that the guests can see Colosseum from its windows, you cannot move your business and are forced to pay whatever protection money they want from you.