05/06/2006

Should Venice be saved?

Rachel Campbell-Johnston, The Times

The Venice in Peril Fund, which has raised millions of pounds for preserving the city since the flood of 1966, is debating whether enough money has now been spent. Mobile flood barriers are currently being built at a cost of 4.3 billion euros, but even these will only defend the city for a few more decades. Is Venice worth saving - or should it be allowed to sink gracefully into the sea? Read Rachel Campbell-Johnston's opinion and send us your view using the form below. Your replies will be posted here.

Save Venice? Of course! Look what contemporary architects are capable of conceiving today - bland, characterless cities which all seem to resemble Milton Keynes. Imagine a Canaletto painting of Milton Keynes - yuk. Venice, the place where I felt transported into another world - pure bliss. Kevin Lallah, Inverness

Venice is sinking into the sea in more ways than the obvious. Having just returned from my first and last trip to Venice, I would like to offer them my views. I was struck by the utter disdain with which visitors were treated. While the shop workers were certainly polite enough, I sensed an overall underlying hostility and contempt, as if everyone walking the islands had just got off a liner in appliqued sweatshirts and white socks.I was saddened by the overwhelmingly obvious attempt to take my money, but without the courtesy one would typically encounter when deciding whether, or not, to give it up. I would never return, and have suggested to my friends and colleagues that it would time and money ill-spent to visit there. Terri Price, London

Look at it like this: 4.3 billion euros to save Venice is a mere drop in the Adriatic, surely, compared with what it costs to mount invasions. In both cases the outcome is a matter of will. Venice's problem is one of hydraulics; these sorts of problems have technical solutions that are not necessarily ruinously expensive; there is bound to be an ingenious and relatively cheap way of raising Venice by 10cm every century - or faster - until the flooding danger recedes. On the other hand, I'm inclined to Rachel Campbell-Johnson's view. Time to let go, perhaps? Jonathan Stiles, Turku, Finland

As Venice has become little more than a Disneyesque wonderland for tourists; would tourists not like an underwater sight-seeing trip? I think it would beat getting lost in the maze that it is. A real life Atlantis for future generations. Myles Harrington, Bournemouth

Save Venezia? For whom? I would imagine that on a typical day around 90 per cent of all visitors would be found within a stone's throw of the Piazza San Marco and the Rialto, or spread in linear fashion along the Canal Grande. Wander down the back lanes, north to the Fondamente Nuove, then south to the Canal della Giudecca (or catch the vaporetto across to Giudecca itself) and you will see the other face of Venezia, a city dependent, yes, on foot and water transport, but one going about its everyday business like any other large urban centre, oblivious to the visiting crowds. Or head south to Chioggia, at the bottom end of the Laguna, population around 60,000. A mini-Venezia, but more famous as a seaside resort than as a historic centre. But equally at risk from inundations. For the sake of all those who live and work in these communities a rational and effective flood protection/prevention scheme is essential. Mike Bent, Oviedo, Spain
 
I've heard that Disney could save the city. I would accept a gondola ride from Mickey if it contributed to saving Venice but I would not ask the Mouse to sing to me. I think Venice can best be saved by Italians. At their best, they could save us all. Donald Stewart, Rome

I certainly do not agree with the present attempts to save Venice. A much more radical approach is needed. Individual corporations and governments throughout the Western world should be encouraged to buy blocks of the city and reassemble them elsewhere. Venice may die but at least large parts of it will survive somewhere. I would imagine that the cost of such a venture would be more than compensated for by tourist dollars. Whatever happens I do not believe the Italian taxpayer should have to fork out for it. Derek Sinclair, Dundee
 
Venice is the most beautiful and serene city in the world. It is a haven of beauty and peace in a troubled and turbulent world. It is a place when you can walk without fear at night. Where you can wander the streets as our forbears did - with no cars. Where you can see the same things they did in much the same way. People say Venice is overpriced and smelly and the inhabitants are rude - yes, that can be the way of it. But to me they are charming and friendly, the streets are interesting and welcoming. I treat them as though I were part of their city and they sense that. They welcome me as I welcome them. The city is beautiful, magical, with a hint of former decadence and power. We are a highly advanced society. If we can move the temple of Abu Simbel out of the way of the dam, surely we can save one of the most glorious inheritances the world has ever seen. Madeleine Chawner, Twickenham
 
Should we or could we mess with nature? What about saving the coral islands of Tuvalu? I doubt there will be a huge outcry when these sink beneath the rising seas. Terry, Hampshire
 
Venice is a congested, over priced, kitsch ridden tourist trap. It is also the most beautiful, imaginative, awe inspiring place I have traveled to. Are 'we' so incompetent that we cannot find a way or the money to save such a remarkable city that generations have been saving for over 800 years? Maybe we should let the jungles of Cambodia swallow up Angkor Wat, and let pollution tinge the Taj Mahal or bury the pyramids of Egypt in Sand. Or better still, let Venice drown and wait another 50 years to spend billions more to "discover" it again. Megha Shelat, Surrey
 
Of course it should be saved; it belongs to humanity. Millions are wasted in other things like weapons and nobody says a thing. Alex Guerriero, Oxford
 
Venice is a unique city. There is no chance that anything like it will ever be built again. We cannot let it die. However, that does not mean that 'Venice in peril fund' should be a bottomless urn and the do gooders should get whatever they ask for. Venice belongs to the world and not just Italy. It should be treated as such. An international debate should be held as to the optimum way to preserve the character of Venice for ever with a finite amount of money. Now that the building of gigantic dams has been established around the world, why not build something akin to a dam around Venice where the city will be within a reservoir. The water within the canals can then be controlled. I am not an engineer but this is just a vision. Vinay Mehra, Purley
 
To let Venice die in serenity is one way to bring the myth to a fitting conclusion. Another myth of equal power is to battle on against the odds, for we do not know whence salvation might come. It will be no less arrogant to believe we are the generation who should choose her fate than it is to believe we can save her. Will future generations forgive us if, having had the pleasure of this great beauty, we deny others even the hope of being embraced by Serenissima? Neil Hitchin, Ely

Copyright The Times 2006