This is interesting. For years, scientists warn about Venice will eventually go underwater as sea level continues to rise.
I only came to this comment thread to find the climate change denier. I was not disappointed.
Venice without water
21–30 of 96 posts
Re: Venice without water
#22To an uneducated eye (like mine), Venice looks inadaptable and bound to struggle, and eventually fail. Buildings require constant repair due to erosion. Too much water brings flooding, too little exposes mud and filth, and hinders transportation... I'm very curious to know what counter-measures are put in place to protect the city from these (and many more) dangers.
The non-adaptation thing is recent. Dig down and you will find every building today stands atop the rubble of many previous that were nocked down once they got too expensive to maintain. The city constantly sinks and readily adapted to this. Some might say that need to constantly adapt made venice great. But at some point in the 1950s/60s the "greatest generation" decided to protect the old at all costs. Nothing is e…
Sources? What I know doesn‘t fit your story. The most of the traditional houses aren‘t on the rubbles at all but on the water tanks, which are at least a few hundred years old.
Re: Venice without water
#23This would be the perfect time to clean up the city :)
is it filthy? do the canals have trash floating? What are you alluding to?
I was struck by the fact that the bottoms of the canals is just mud--no trash (at least in the photos in the article). The article mentioned the "filth buried at the bottom of the canals", but they seem remarkably clean.
Re: Venice without water
#24The comment about declining population looks really off. I think most of protected old town areas lost population compared to 100 years ago. People no longer cram in tiny rooms, undesirable ground level flats are converted to shops. Why would this ever be a problem? They have Mestre just over a bridge.
What I know for sure is that Venice proper (that is, what is in the middle of the lagoon) has been hemorrhaging residents for a long time now. Residents strated moving to Mestre and Marghera for various reasons (for example because they worked there) but also because Venice is becoming a touristic attraction, not a place people want to live in. Prices for houses are completely insane, and the fact that people are going away feeds back to a lot of shops (I mean shops for residents, not for tourists) closing down.
At the moment the isles are home to more or less 55.000 people, while the majority of the population lives in Mestre and Marghera.
> Why would this ever be a problem?
Because, as I said, there are very few residents in there. Would you still call it a city or is it more Mestre's tourist attraction?
My parents moved from Venice to Mestre in the 80s, so I was born in Venice but always lived in Mestre. I'm not sure I resent them for this, in hindsight.
Re: Venice without water
#25Does this coincide with the flood mitigation gates?
No it doesn't. Mainly because it is not finished and so it is non-operational.
Re: Venice without water
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to venice a few years back, there's an outer seawall that protects it from tides. Venice also naturally floods all the time, when I was over there the large square next to the cathedral / church flooded. When it floods, it usually floods several inches on average There's a good article on it here https://www.visit-venice-italy.com/acqua-alta-venice-italy.h...
Same thing happened when I was there as well. But, surprisingly, it wasn't as big of a hassle as one would have thought. You could just walk around it. And a few hours later rain stopped, the flooding relented and it was back to normal.
And you’ll see stepping-stone type things scattered around the sidewalks to help people walk over flooded areas as well as doors to homes and businesses sealed at the bottom to allow for about 1 meter of flooding without causing any interior damage. Then there are sandbags scattered about to help with flood protection when necessary.
Venice has been fine for hundreds of years; it isn’t all the sudden going to fail.. it just adapts and moves on. By far the biggest danger to Venice is the hoards of tourists that make getting around for a local almost impossible. When I was there in November (to take a Venician Plastet/Marmolino class) — even in the cold rain it was essentially a mob of people seemingly everywhere except the most back streets of back streets. That “hidden Venice” is quite amazing — I am definitely over the crowds and kitsch that pollute the maIn drags. Pro-tip if you want to have a nice visit: explore the streets and canals at night.
Re: Venice without water
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
The non-adaptation thing is recent. Dig down and you will find every building today stands atop the rubble of many previous that were nocked down once they got too expensive to maintain. The city constantly sinks and readily adapted to this. Some might say that need to constantly adapt made venice great. But at some point in the 1950s/60s the "greatest generation" decided to protect the old at all costs. Nothing is e…
Sources? What I know doesn‘t fit your story. The most of the traditional houses aren‘t on the rubbles at all but on the water tanks, which are at least a few hundred years old.
Many buildings in Venice are hundreds of years old. If the cycle involves replacing, say, 1% of buildings every 5 years then that isn't necessarily in conflict. Most of the buildings would be hundreds of years old, but after 50 years of an effective moratorium, 10% would need to be replaced despite the fact that most buildings are hundreds of years old and don't need to be replaced.
That's a little different from saying the entire city needs to be rebuilt, but it will eventually.
Re: Venice without water
#28To an uneducated eye (like mine), Venice looks inadaptable and bound to struggle, and eventually fail. Buildings require constant repair due to erosion. Too much water brings flooding, too little exposes mud and filth, and hinders transportation... I'm very curious to know what counter-measures are put in place to protect the city from these (and many more) dangers.
I went to venice a few years back, there's an outer seawall that protects it from tides. Venice also naturally floods all the time, when I was over there the large square next to the cathedral / church flooded. When it floods, it usually floods several inches on average There's a good article on it here https://www.visit-venice-italy.com/acqua-alta-venice-italy.h...
> I went to venice a few years back, there's an outer seawall that protects it from tides.
As I said in another comments, no, the wall (MOSE, several walls, actually) has not been completed yet and is non-operational.
Re: Venice without water
#29To me it seems like reading this makes one believe that the blood and blue parts of the "super blue blood moon" had some minor relevancy in all of this and made the water levels slightly lower than usual.
To clarify, the eclipse part has nothing to do with tides. The "red" part couldn't even be seen from Italy from what I could find. The "blue" part is totally arbitrary as well (two full moons in one calendar month).
So, a super moon affected this, the blue and blood parts are more of a coincidence... I think. Took 15 min to search for all of this to confirm my initial suspicion, but my search results were filled with the event from a couple of days ago, so I could be wrong.
Re: Venice without water
#30I feel like this is a good thing....it's not going to last, and it gives them an opportunity in the meantime to more easily clean and repair places that are normally less accessible.
That was my first thought as well - great opportunity for checking and repairing the canal walls.