Cities are complicated. And we have spoken before about how it can sometimes feel like they never really reach homeostasis. In extreme cases, it might seem like they're either decaying and losing people, or they're too successful.
I was reminded of this again this morning while reading an article about how Rome's historic city center is being overrun with Airbnbs and tourists, and how it is pushing out the locals. It has, arguably, become too successful as a tourist destination.
Of course, this problem isn't unique to Rome. Venice has the same thing going on, though probably to a greater extent. And Amsterdam is currently working to attract more highbrow tourists and to move their red light district out of the city center.
But the question I have is: What's the right amount of tourism? If 25,000 listings is too many for Rome, what's the right number? And do cities ever really achieve homeostasis, where, you know, things feel just right? Here's an excerpt from the above article that describes what parts of Rome were like before the tourism boom:
Ms. Rapaccini remembers when Monti was a quiet, authentic haven for arty types and locals. She and her late partner, the film director Mario Monicelli, who received six Oscar nominations, moved to Monti in 1988. The area was unfashionable, dirty and full of prostitutes, but beautiful in its gritty way, “like a little village” even though it was in the heart of a big, bustling city, she recalls. The apartments were cheap and the area began to attract film types, journalists and artisans – none of them rich – who mixed easily with local workers and shop owners.
It's a romantic description of what sounds like a pretty gritty area. Unfashionable, dirty, and full of prostitutes is apparently better than full of annoying American tourists. And perhaps it is. But then what was the area like before it was unfashionable, dirty, and full of prostitutes? Was that also better?
I have no idea. But cities are constantly changing and evolving, and they were doing it long before any of us arrived, especially in the case of an ancient city like Rome. Maybe that's what makes it so difficult to hang onto that exact moment in time when everything was just right.
Chart: Globe and Mail
Back in 2014, Amsterdam became the first city to have what is referred to as a "night mayor." And at the time, including here on this blog, this was generally viewed as a pretty progressive thing to do. It recognized that there is an important nighttime economy and that, with the right leadership, it be harnessed for broader economic development purposes. As a result, many cities followed suit and appointed their own night mayors. (Toronto did not, despite my repeated posts.)
But fast forward to today and things feel different. Night mayors aren't talked about as much in city building circles. And Amsterdam is actually trying to limit overall tourism growth. It is working to relocate its Red Light District to outside of the city center and it hopes to reduce the amount of people who come to the city just to misbehave. To be clear, it still wants tourists; it just wants more people who do things like go to museums:
The Netherlands’ capital plans to launch a deterrence campaign later this month aimed at tourists who go wild during their visits. In addition to new ads, the city has proposed rules in its infamous Red Light District, such as a ban on smoking marijuana in the street, earlier weekend closing times for bars, clubs and sex-work establishments and reduced alcohol sales.
Amsterdam’s liberal rules for drugs and prostitution have long attracted travelers looking to let loose, but officials say they are taking it too far and harming the quality of life for residents.
This is an interesting situation because usually the problem is, "how do we get more tourists to come and visit our city? Should we maybe build a casino or a Ferris wheel or something else equally as big?" Instead, the problem here is, "we have way too many drunk and annoying tourists. How do we swap them for more cultured visitors?" Of course, one solution is to just tell people that they are annoying and that they should stop coming. And that's generally what the ad campaigns plan to do.
An alternative approach might be to celebrate all of the other things that one can do in Amsterdam.
Back in 2014, Amsterdam became the first city to have what is called a "night mayor." The role of a night mayor is what the name suggests. They are intended to be the chief executive officer of a city's nighttime economy. And so it was and it continues to be recognition that the night can be an important economic development tool.
This seemed to work out well for Amsterdam, which is why many other cities quickly followed suit with their own night mayor elections. During this time, a number of us here in Toronto also started advocating for our own nighttime CEO. (FYI, here is a link to the current night mayor of Amsterdam.)
But fast forward to today and the tone seems to have changed in Amsterdam. The city's daytime mayor, Femke Halsema, is now actively concerned about over-tourism and, in particular, the way that some tourists behave when they check-in to Amsterdam.
Here's an excerpt from a recent interview that she did with Bloomberg:
We have to tackle two problems. The first problem is what I’d call the London problem: Our city is becoming too expensive. That is also part of being an international city and having many expats living here. But it has consequences for the middle classes. It’s very difficult to find a house in Amsterdam except for the highest incomes, so our middle class — teachers, police officers, people working in health care — are leaving the city. We’re very alert about it. For a city to survive in the long run you need social stability and people from middle or lower classes to also feel at home.
Our second problem is the Venice problem: The people who live here become estranged especially in the city center, because it’s no longer part of their city. We have to find a new balance, in being a home for people from Amsterdam and at the same time welcoming international visitors and tourists.
More specifically, the Venice problem seems to be a problem of behavior:
It’s not a form of tourism we welcome or don’t welcome — it’s a form of behavior. What we do not welcome is people who come here on a vacation from morals. They express a form of behavior they would not express at home. People coming here to lose their morals is a problem for us.
It is for this reason that the city is hoping to relocate its red light district to outside of the city center. The intention is not to get rid of it, or for the city to turn its back on its long history of tolerance, but it does want to move it somewhere else in the hopes that Amsterdam will become more associated with culture than hedonism.
But does moving it actually change any behaviors? If one were to develop a purpose-built "erotic center" from the ground up, is it even possible to make it more integrated with the broader city (minimize the Venice problem) and, to use the mayor's words, make it more chic than what currently exists?
These are all exceedingly tough city building questions that can't really be untangled from questions of morality.
For the full Bloomberg interview with mayor Halsema, click here.