I've read that when visiting the Vatican, you can pay extra to be allowed to walk through before regular admission starts. Which seems totally worth the cost, but a) keeps it out of reach of most people, and b) kicks the can down the street until there are enough people willing to pay the higher cost.
But overall the system seems like the best we can get... one portion of the day with limited admission (maybe a cap at a very small number of visitors), auctioned so that those who are willing to pay the most get in. Then that money is used for upkeep & supporting general admission, where anyone can pay a low price to come in with ~no cap.
I die a little inside to discuss limiting a full experience of some of the world's best-known works of art to the wealthy, but I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good.
People aren’t entitled to experiences. Back in the day, most people barely left their own towns. You might be lucky if you saw one great work of art in your lifetime. That’s what we must return to in order to keep places from getting over saturated with tourism.
Because the world doesn’t revolve around them. Just because you will never get to see the Sistine Chapel doesn’t mean you should be fine with it being burnt down.
Perhaps that could be your philosophy of the world. But indeed, me along with millions do want to broaden our understanding and experience of the world.
Else why even use phones and the internet to post here, unlike "back in the days of yonder".
From a purely pragmatic/selfish perspective, the more wondrous places that exist the greater the opportunity for me to see one, both from a "hey that's close to where I'll be" standpoint and "hey, the more tourists at the Sistine Chapel, the fewer at the Louvre".
But from a broader perspective, beauty in the world is worth cherishing. I regret the gradual destruction of both the coral reefs and Venice. I was saddened when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, despite never expecting to see them, despite not even knowing they existed previously.
To me that seems a lot different than the scenario that the parent poster is presenting where the majority of people stay in their small town and never experience any of these things.
I can definitely get on board for the idea that humanity needs to work together to manage our cultural resources so that everyone can benefit. I can't get on board with the idea that the majority of people should live empty lives in order to preserve things for a lucky few.
Whether we like it or not, tourist attractions do not scale. Everyone isn’t going to get their 15 minutes with the Sistine chapel. Some won’t even get more than a few minutes if at all.
I get what you are saying, but you aren't explaining what your solution is.
It sounds like you are advocating returning to a model where the peasants toil away in obscurity to that the aristocracy can enjoy art, travel, etc. However, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that's not actually what you are advocating.
The lotteries for the national parks are abused by automated bots reserving in microseconds - at least in the PNW. Heck, I've even stumbled upon a secondary marketplace reselling them for thousands since they are transferable (fatal flaw). So the argument about equal access is moot.
There will always be some people that find a way to slip through but it is possible to make it a significant difficulty to do so. It’s just that most places don’t care to.
I know bots abuse the campground and permitted hike system but I don't how or why they'd try and manipulate the lottery. The cost is so high and odds so low of winning things like the the wave or the Enchantments.
What we really need is what my university had where if you grab a spot and no one shows up, you can't get a spot for a certain amount of time.
One that I've done is the Enchantments (also PNW, but WA state, not national).
For that, it is not transferable; you can register for multiple people (eg: 5 campers for dates XYZ), but whoever's name is on the lotto ticket must be present in the group when you register at the ranger station.
Almost everywhere in the world you can pay extra to get into places earlier than the general public. Just depends on how much money you are willing to spend
The article is exactly right. The tour is a river if people flowing through the prescribed route until you're vomited into St Peter's.
Fortunately, you can go out a small door on the other side and walk through the entire Vatican at your leisure. There are miles upon miles of museum that most people never get to see because they follow the river.
The Sistine itself is hopeless though because it's always crowded.
A self guided wander at your own pace is something much more up my alley.
I've spent the better part of a week going through the Hermitage, same with the Lourve. A guided tour whisking you through the high visibility points in a few hours leaves way too much to be seen, imo.
It is directly across from the exit to St Peters, so on the same wall that you enter in but at the other Edge.
It takes you back to the beginning of the tour and then you can wander with the river folk and take a side route which I don't remember to get to the rest of the grounds
At this point I don't understand why anybody would even bother trying to visit any of the popular spots.
For example we were in Madrid in 2019. The queue to the Prado was round the block. It was hundreds of metres long.
I don't care what's in the Prado, but it's not that good. The Mona Lisa can't be that good. The Sistine isn't that good.
Find another chapel. Find a smaller gallery. Find a lesser-known work. And actually enjoy it, rather than just seeing it so you can take your photo and tick the box.
But then tourists go and ruin the lesser known places. Tourists by and large suck, and while they may bump the economy, their "this is MY vacation" attitude drives everyone nuts. Not to mention the ecological aspect.
Best form of tourism you can do is with a VR headset.
Tourism is fine. There are plenty of paintings in the world, most of which rarely even see the light of day, and more being made every day. I recently went to a couple of local galleries in a place we were visiting (the Fukuhara Memorial Museum and the Hokkaido Landscape Museum) - absolutely stunning, and almost completely empty; they would absolutely have welcomed 10x the visitors they had. It's only the name brand places that have a problem.
Say, rather, that the poor experience of seeing it so hastily with so many other tourists is not that good. But the Sistine itself is that good. The popularity is warranted by the quality of the work.
it's not really a prisoners dilemma, as there's no opportunity for mutual reward through cooperation. there aren't enough hours in the year for everyone to get the chance to properly appreciate it. you can either set it up as a speedrun where everyone gets a five minute peek, or a lottery where most people don't see it at all.
But... They are that good. The David was the one for me. First time I waited in line for well over an hour. That was two decades ago. And it is still one of the best works of art I've seen. Made it back once more. Last time the line was still long so I decided to skip it. But I'd go again.
There are some things that aren't really worth the long wait, but there are some things that are.
And get there is still a ton of things out there to see
The Sistine Chapel is lovely. I don't discount checking a box to say that you've been there. But while you are there, explore more of the vatican museum. There are countless artifacts there that would be the centerpieces of less important museums, but in the context of that museum, they might go unnoticed in a corner. I find this true of tourism in general. 80-95% of the crowds go to 5-20% of the things to do. In the Louvre, it's the Mona Lisa. In the Vatican it's the sistine chapel. Meanwhile there are museums filled with pieces that would probably auction for 8-9 digits, but for whatever reasons, are not well known to the general public and therefore don't get the attention. No one is taking selfies of themselves next to the 17th most valuable painting in the Louvre (much more so the 100th most valuable piece, which is still extremely valuable), but I assure you that the quality of the work is every bit as fantastic as the most famous ones.
What if the prestige from going places and posting selfies from there, now outweighs the actual value of any of those paintings for many people?
I read an interesting article a few days ago about how, due to the smartphone and social media, ordinary people today are basically living like they are performers on TV. When everything they do is focused on performance, there’s less time or interest in contemplatively examining art. The quality of those lesser-known works might matter to you, me, or some others here on HN. But does it matter to enough people now to put any dent in overtourism of the über-famous works?
Oh man, I love the Louvre. You could spend days there and not see everything.
I spent most of a day there and there were very few people in most of the exhibits, which was really nice. I got to take my time to enjoy the pieces I got to see.
I did stop by the Mona Lisa just to say I'd been there, and the crowd around it was really stupid. There are dozens, if not hundreds of much more interesting paintings in the same room and the hallway beyond.
I didn't note the name of the painting, but hanging directly opposite the Mona Lisa was a gigantic painting, probably ten feet high and twenty across. Absolutely full of exquisite details. Not a single person paid it any attention.
The large painting opposite the Mona Lisa is The Wedding Feast at Cana[0]. And I totally agree, I had the same experience there. Also loved Napoleon’s quarters.
I’m a skeptic of VR in general but this is one area I hope it’ll make a difference some day. I’ve been to a lot of historical sites and they’ve mostly been… fine. But I really do think I’d get more out of a truly immersive VR exploration than of a walk through with a packed crowd.
I recently had the realization that traveling is going to get more competitive over time.
There is a relatively finite number of places that people want to travel to. Places like Venice and Yosemite evolved over long time scales to be world-famous destinations. People are getting the economic opportunity to travel faster than top-tier destinations can accommodate them. New destinations may emerge over time, but tourism supply simply can't keep up with demand: you can't just go make a new Venice or a new Yosemite.
As supply outstrips demand, constraints emerge. Financial constraints are unpopular: they're perceived as classist, and its inappropriate to charge high rates to access public resources like parks. Therefore, temporal constraints like reservation systems become commonplace.
I'm concerned that the planners are going to take over travel: that if you're not the kind of person who commits to things ahead of time, there simply won't be space for you in the travel marketplace. As someone who tends to wing things, this makes me sad for myself. It also makes me sad for the human experience more generally that there will be one more nudge into order and away from freedom.
I’ve found that just starting off in any great city and rambling about to be very rewarding.
I mean if you want to see the Sistine Chapel, you need to plan. But Rome is full of amazing architecture and not many people want to climb every Spanish Step.
That and you can always go very early in the morning before the first tour bus.
You’re just older. We all are, everyone gets older.
My parents generation could like work half a summer buy a used station wagon and drive out to California and live in a shack by the beach.
My generation could graduate college and easily find a crappy downtown apartment in the middle of basically any major city we wanted.
Or since we’re talking about travel I remember flying down to Tulum for New Years Eve without a hotel reservation or anything and just driving down the strip until I found an ocean front cabana for $25 a night. It’s the “Riviera Maya” now.
And I’m not even that old.
And so on. The world is just getting more filled up. You don’t have to go that many generations back before people would go off and claim whole countries just by showing up with a flag.
Time is directional. It’ll just progress like this forever.
I spent a little over a month on the road last year just winging it. It's the best.
While I agree that the big destinations are harder and harder to visit due to the crowds, there's a lot to see out there that isn't "on the map", and some of my favorite stops were the unexpected trailheads, lesser known national parks without as many facilities, and smaller state parks I encountered along the way.
With a different kind of planning (i.e. vehicle/supplies/camping gear), winging it will still be possible, but "book a trip to X major park on a whim", not so much.
A couple of tourist experiences left me feeling that I am the problem when I visit a popular destination nowadays. It puts a damper on the enjoyment. That and air travel.
I've found some alternatives. My family attends a week of playing folk music in a small town in the North Woods every summer. The people are the destination. I'm pretty sure we're outnumbered by the seasonal workers (lumber, construction, etc).
I'm perfectly contented to take some days off from work and knock around the countryside on my bike. Activities that require physical effort are still somewhat insulated from overcrowding. Anywhere that's more than 1/4 hour walk from the tour buses becomes a different world.
> I'm perfectly contented to take some days off from work and knock around the countryside on my bike.
For the last decade-plus, I have spent about half of every year traveling around the world on my bike. A lot of routes are starting to feel very crowded, and seemingly every cyclist is posting on social media, which in turn attracts more people to cycle there. Even some grueling bikepacking routes that are feasible only for those who are fit, can afford quality gear, and can be on the road for weeks at a time, now draw so many cyclists that local people’s attitudes to foreigners are changing.
I've seen that while hiking. It's better when you get 1/4 hour away from buses, but is definitely getting more crowded. I hiked to the top of some "fourteeners" in the Rockies, and you had to wait your turn to stand at the summit.
The earth has too many people.
I'm willing to do my part by not being fit enough for those grueling routes. ;-)
62 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadBut overall the system seems like the best we can get... one portion of the day with limited admission (maybe a cap at a very small number of visitors), auctioned so that those who are willing to pay the most get in. Then that money is used for upkeep & supporting general admission, where anyone can pay a low price to come in with ~no cap.
I die a little inside to discuss limiting a full experience of some of the world's best-known works of art to the wealthy, but I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good.
Else why even use phones and the internet to post here, unlike "back in the days of yonder".
If people won't get any benefit from the Sistine Chapel (or comparable locations), then why should they care if they exist?
But from a broader perspective, beauty in the world is worth cherishing. I regret the gradual destruction of both the coral reefs and Venice. I was saddened when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, despite never expecting to see them, despite not even knowing they existed previously.
I can definitely get on board for the idea that humanity needs to work together to manage our cultural resources so that everyone can benefit. I can't get on board with the idea that the majority of people should live empty lives in order to preserve things for a lucky few.
It sounds like you are advocating returning to a model where the peasants toil away in obscurity to that the aristocracy can enjoy art, travel, etc. However, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that's not actually what you are advocating.
We need another Michelangelo.
A lottery system is an alternative. Still need to generate enough money to cover costs, but could be done as a partial thing.
For instance, some national park areas in the US have lotteries to be allowed to camp in them. The fee is low, so it's not biased towards rich people.
A bit like how Billy Joel got tired of bored rich people in the front row seats, so he reserved them to be given to random real fans.
I'm sure there's a reader here that is aware.
There will always be some people that find a way to slip through but it is possible to make it a significant difficulty to do so. It’s just that most places don’t care to.
What we really need is what my university had where if you grab a spot and no one shows up, you can't get a spot for a certain amount of time.
For that, it is not transferable; you can register for multiple people (eg: 5 campers for dates XYZ), but whoever's name is on the lotto ticket must be present in the group when you register at the ranger station.
Almost everywhere in the world you can pay extra to get into places earlier than the general public. Just depends on how much money you are willing to spend
Fortunately, you can go out a small door on the other side and walk through the entire Vatican at your leisure. There are miles upon miles of museum that most people never get to see because they follow the river.
The Sistine itself is hopeless though because it's always crowded.
Still magnificent and not to be missed.
I've spent the better part of a week going through the Hermitage, same with the Lourve. A guided tour whisking you through the high visibility points in a few hours leaves way too much to be seen, imo.
There are a few spots marked by a red dot where you can choose between the short itinerary and the complete itinerary.
It is directly across from the exit to St Peters, so on the same wall that you enter in but at the other Edge.
It takes you back to the beginning of the tour and then you can wander with the river folk and take a side route which I don't remember to get to the rest of the grounds
The motions and words made by the priest correspond to the murals. It wasn’t intended to be viewed, it was intended to assist in the liturgy.
For example we were in Madrid in 2019. The queue to the Prado was round the block. It was hundreds of metres long.
I don't care what's in the Prado, but it's not that good. The Mona Lisa can't be that good. The Sistine isn't that good.
Find another chapel. Find a smaller gallery. Find a lesser-known work. And actually enjoy it, rather than just seeing it so you can take your photo and tick the box.
Best form of tourism you can do is with a VR headset.
Say, rather, that the poor experience of seeing it so hastily with so many other tourists is not that good. But the Sistine itself is that good. The popularity is warranted by the quality of the work.
It's a classic prisoners' dilemma.
I read an interesting article a few days ago about how, due to the smartphone and social media, ordinary people today are basically living like they are performers on TV. When everything they do is focused on performance, there’s less time or interest in contemplatively examining art. The quality of those lesser-known works might matter to you, me, or some others here on HN. But does it matter to enough people now to put any dent in overtourism of the über-famous works?
(:
I spent most of a day there and there were very few people in most of the exhibits, which was really nice. I got to take my time to enjoy the pieces I got to see.
I did stop by the Mona Lisa just to say I'd been there, and the crowd around it was really stupid. There are dozens, if not hundreds of much more interesting paintings in the same room and the hallway beyond.
I didn't note the name of the painting, but hanging directly opposite the Mona Lisa was a gigantic painting, probably ten feet high and twenty across. Absolutely full of exquisite details. Not a single person paid it any attention.
I genuinely don't get it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_at_Cana
> I genuinely don't get it.
Being snobbish about the behaviour or the masses is less tenable when you are doing the same thing as them.
II could stand to wait a century or so if it means a slow, reflective tour of the Sistine Chapel.
If group rates apply, maybe III and IV will tag along. :)
There is a relatively finite number of places that people want to travel to. Places like Venice and Yosemite evolved over long time scales to be world-famous destinations. People are getting the economic opportunity to travel faster than top-tier destinations can accommodate them. New destinations may emerge over time, but tourism supply simply can't keep up with demand: you can't just go make a new Venice or a new Yosemite.
As supply outstrips demand, constraints emerge. Financial constraints are unpopular: they're perceived as classist, and its inappropriate to charge high rates to access public resources like parks. Therefore, temporal constraints like reservation systems become commonplace.
I'm concerned that the planners are going to take over travel: that if you're not the kind of person who commits to things ahead of time, there simply won't be space for you in the travel marketplace. As someone who tends to wing things, this makes me sad for myself. It also makes me sad for the human experience more generally that there will be one more nudge into order and away from freedom.
I’ve found that just starting off in any great city and rambling about to be very rewarding.
I mean if you want to see the Sistine Chapel, you need to plan. But Rome is full of amazing architecture and not many people want to climb every Spanish Step.
That and you can always go very early in the morning before the first tour bus.
My parents generation could like work half a summer buy a used station wagon and drive out to California and live in a shack by the beach.
My generation could graduate college and easily find a crappy downtown apartment in the middle of basically any major city we wanted.
Or since we’re talking about travel I remember flying down to Tulum for New Years Eve without a hotel reservation or anything and just driving down the strip until I found an ocean front cabana for $25 a night. It’s the “Riviera Maya” now.
And I’m not even that old.
And so on. The world is just getting more filled up. You don’t have to go that many generations back before people would go off and claim whole countries just by showing up with a flag.
Time is directional. It’ll just progress like this forever.
While I agree that the big destinations are harder and harder to visit due to the crowds, there's a lot to see out there that isn't "on the map", and some of my favorite stops were the unexpected trailheads, lesser known national parks without as many facilities, and smaller state parks I encountered along the way.
With a different kind of planning (i.e. vehicle/supplies/camping gear), winging it will still be possible, but "book a trip to X major park on a whim", not so much.
"Visit Historic Earth!"
-Yogi
I've found some alternatives. My family attends a week of playing folk music in a small town in the North Woods every summer. The people are the destination. I'm pretty sure we're outnumbered by the seasonal workers (lumber, construction, etc).
I'm perfectly contented to take some days off from work and knock around the countryside on my bike. Activities that require physical effort are still somewhat insulated from overcrowding. Anywhere that's more than 1/4 hour walk from the tour buses becomes a different world.
For the last decade-plus, I have spent about half of every year traveling around the world on my bike. A lot of routes are starting to feel very crowded, and seemingly every cyclist is posting on social media, which in turn attracts more people to cycle there. Even some grueling bikepacking routes that are feasible only for those who are fit, can afford quality gear, and can be on the road for weeks at a time, now draw so many cyclists that local people’s attitudes to foreigners are changing.
The earth has too many people.
I'm willing to do my part by not being fit enough for those grueling routes. ;-)