Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The backlash against overtourism

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 311 posts

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#51

Post by eternalban »

mattnewton wrote: post #34

Sounds like in many cases they need a pricing mechanism to pay for the externalities. A tourist tax on hotels downtown is nice, what about a tax on tourist alchohol? And cannabis in Amsterdam, that pays for the stag party cleanup? Tickets for publically vomiting after 10pm? But in other cases, for any reasonable tax the demand might still keep outstripping supply. I guess that leaves unreasonably high fees, or someth…

Back in the early 90s in St. Marks (NYC) there was this head shop (among many others on that fabled stretch) with a [prominently displayed] "This Ain't Kansas Dorothy" t-shirt with a drawing of a handgun. Manhattan had this unique 'buzz', and some people actually were scared of visiting!

Now it is an open air disney land for the tourist. The buzz is gone and most of us have retreated to Brooklyn.

I now fully sympathize with "rude" Parisians.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#52

Post by js2 »

robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

I stayed with my wife and two kids on Venice almost exactly four years ago this month. We avoided the busy spots during the day, and had Venice to ourselves at night. So even at places as busy as Venice, it's still possible to avoid crowds.

We actually found Florence to be busy almost everywhere, even with lots of people still wandering around at night. The Uffizi was the one place that was impossible to enjoy, mostly because of the tour groups. I wish they would limit the number of people in any given room at a time. But, we wandered across to the Museo Galileo and had it to ourselves.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#53

Post by cr1895 »

robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

>All Italy has to do is start load balancing tourists.

This is the approach the city of Amsterdam is trying in order to alleviate the huge tourism pressure. I'm not sure how effective it has been. It has resulted in funny things like "Amsterdam Castle" or "Amsterdam Beach" in tourist promotions that have nothing to do with Amsterdam. But, if it spreads the load...

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#54

Post by etblg »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #22

Meh. I grew up somewhere tourism was the biggest local industry. I will never be able to go on a "normal vacation" without feeling dirty because I know how the sausage is made. Tourism sucks and the suck percolates through the entire local economy and everybody who has to participate in it (i.e. everyone who lives there). Even if you don't sell grossly overpriced goods or services to the tourists you make your living…

Where did you grow up?

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#55

Post by coldtea »

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…

>It sucks. But what's the alternative? It's perfectly reasonable to drag people out of poverty. But the idea that everyone should be able to do the same things implies a set of "things" very different from what, say, the middle class families on my suburban street do today.

Exactly. The "eternal growing of the economic cake" which the majority of the related policies are based on, ignores limits to growth (e.g. energy, rare materials, food, etc.) and doesn't care about externalities.

Under that model 10 billion people could all live like middle class Californians eventually.

(Religious-like faith in technology, and "it worked thus far so it will work forever" wishful thinking also play a role - it also helps to ignore the law of diminishing returns and low hanging fruits).

Under reality, there will be huge cutting back and, quite possibly, big human toll, before we reach a livable equilibrium.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#56

Post by maxxxxx »

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…

"It sucks. But what's the alternative? "

Ideally we would stop breeding and keep world population at a certain number. In reality population will probably keep growing and we can only hope that technology will help avert a disaster.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#57

Post by 908087 »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #47
Tepix wrote: post #39

We need (very) high fidelity virtual reality to save the planet, making traveling superfluous. I'm afraid we're still far away from that development.

I would not choose to live in such a world. It sounds like a dystopia, d’après The Matrix.

The main difference will be that, thanks to the direction our "tech" industry has been headed, "our" matrix will be projecting a constant stream of advertisements onto any natural wonder or monument you attempt to "visit".

"Half Dome -- BROUGHT TO YOU BY PEPSI"

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…

> We can't all eat high quality meat as often as we want. We'll boil the earth and it'll require too much farmland

This is defeatist. Technology decoupled agricultural output from the natural fertility of farmland, thereby allowing less farmland to make more food; technology now looks close to decoupling animal meat from sentient animals.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#59

Post by gbear605 »

esotericn wrote: post #7
conanbatt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view of things doesnt take into account that an absurdly higher number of people can travel and see multiple countries in their life, which was impossible 50 years ago. It is absolutely possible for every earth citizen to become a tourist, there is no economic impediment to do it.

I believe that I covered this in my comment. > We either eliminate these experiences, accept economic inequality, or watch the experiences be eliminated via attrition (e.g. cars devolving into gridlock, tourism devolving into queues and displacement, ...). Specifically, the last part. If everyone is a tourist, what it means to be a tourist is very, very different. Consider: We strictly have enough jet fuel and alumin…

When Venice has more people that go there for tourism, people who wanted to only go to Venice a little will decide to go somewhere else.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#60

Post by coldtea »

robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

>Why Florence struggles with Duomo and Venice struggles in general? Because they're famous all over the world for things they're struggle with. Everyone know about floating city of Venice, and Florence's Cathedral. Those things are being romanticised for centuries.

There's a reason they've been "romanticised for centuries", even when there was not a "lure tourists" motive: they are beautiful.

(Not that 90% of the modern tourists could appreciate beauty in anything else than a superficial way, as something to photograph semi-bored to post to their social account, when what they really want is a burger and some shopping -- but I digress).

Those other places, not so much. So, this "load balancing" can't work very well.

Post reply on HN