Venice has had enough. It is sinking beneath the twin assaults of tourism and the sea and believes the answer lies in fending off visitors by charging them to enter. It is not alone. Tourism is under attack. Seville is charging for entry to the central Plaza de España. In Paris, the Mona Lisa is so besieged by flashing phones she is about to be banished to a basement. Barcelona graffiti shout, “Tourists go home, refugees welcome.” Amsterdam wants no more coach parties, nor does Rome.
The Venice payment will be complicated. It will apply at specific entry points only to day trippers to the city centre, not hotel guests. It will be a mere five euros and confined to peak times of day over the summer. This will hardly cover the cost of running it. It is a political gesture that is unlikely to stem the tourist flow round the Rialto and St Mark’s Square, let alone leave more room for Venetians to enjoy their city undisturbed by mobs.
As any visitor to Venice knows, large areas of it are empty of Venetians – the main island has lost more than 120,000 residents since the early 1950s. Streets and canals are boarded up. If the Grand Canal is lit up at night it is largely thanks to Airbnb. The tourist district is small and jammed with 40,000 visitors a day. Those who have taken the trouble to reach Venice will not be deterred by five euros.
Venice survived intact largely because its economy collapsed and the city realised its future prosperity depended on its antiquity. As it began to sink in the 1960s, writers such as Jan Morris and James Cameron reflected on their sad delight at being the last generation to see Venice before it disappeared. Now the lagoon has been dammed, but the sea is rising and the iron rods beneath the foundations are rusting and rotting. At vast expense they must be repaired, and it is only tourists who will pay the bills.
In Britain, tourism is the growth industry that gets very little attention and still less praise. Millions of visitors, overseas and domestic, come to London each year, a number that is steadily rising. But its assets have to be defended constantly from planners and developers set on demolition. In addition, there is little tourist destinations can do to expand their “offer”. Their appeal is a mostly a wasting asset. However, at least London has more space for all those tourists than poor Venice, which has just a mile or so of central streets to satisfy 30 million visitors a year.
What is for sure is that Europe’s tourism will last as long as it can guard its heritage. Europe is still a treasure trove of humanity’s past, embalmed in historic buildings, cultural quarters and old cities. Its appeal to the outside world has barely begun.
Americans have been the leading tourists in Europe for over half a century, with at least 43% of them having passports. Such documents are held by only 10% of Chinese people and only 7% of Indians. If the numbers of visitors from even just these two countries increase, as they were doing before the Covid-19 pandemic, many of the tourist sites in Europe would have to find new ways to accommodate them.
The task now is not so much to promote the wonders of Europe’s heritage as to conserve and work out how to manage it. Venice is the first such challenge. Some 49,000 remaining Venetian residents cannot possibly pay for the salvation of their city. Thirty million visitors to Venice can. The entry charge is merely a first step.
How soon other cities imitate Venice remains to be seen. In 2018, the Italian town of Bagnoregio, in the Lazio region, parts of which are crumbling downhill, imposed a charge on visitors to raise money for its rescue. It worked. One of the only British towns with the confidence to charge for entry is charming Portmeirion in north Wales. Despite being built by a modern architect in the 20th century, it has become Wales’s most popular attraction.
If I were Venice, I would be shameless. Visiting ancient places is a glorious indulgence. Those who enjoy it should pay accordingly. Good for Venice for showing the way.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
