Venice 08/06/2006
IS VENICE DOOMED BY APATHY AND NOT BY
WATER?
If the world seems in a precarious state these days much of it is due to the apathy
of a public which seems to take its political guidelines from corporate-controlled television
broadcasts and corporate-controlled dailies, rarely casts its vote unless compelled and if it
does, usually votes in ignorance. A good example of this apathy and misinformation is the city
of Venice. As everyone knows La Serenissima has been sinking into its lagoon for centuries
and probably will continue to sink for more centuries despite doomsday predictions it is about to
vanish.
The sinking phenomenon has caused more anxiety among fans of Venice abroad
then among its own citizen. The English dailies this month even advised the concerned English
public against further financial donations to save a city they said was doomed to die and now
only served as a Disneyland theme park where tourists are fleeced. The Times of London
even claimed Venice was ‘dissolving itself like a lump of sugar in a tea cup’
ignoring not a single Venetian palace has ‘dissolved’ itself in the millennium
long history of the city - and is unlikely to do so according to the experts.
The rationale of the Times exhortation ‘to let the city die’ could have been
applied decades, even centuries ago. But then the writers of these calls for a Venetian
euthanasia would never have seen the great city on water. Instead of letting Venice die
international and Italian financial aid has turned the city into a far prettier and much renovated
metropolis over the last decade. The Save Venice funds not only renovated old Palazzi but
reinforced the banks and canals of a city-republic unique in its watery habitat and famous for its
cultural and artistic treasures. In spite of its age and rising ocean-levels this constant
maintenance work has cleaned canals and shored up the banks on the lagoon reducing the
effects of high tides and virtually eliminating Venice’s much vilified canal odors. In fact the
English media’s obituary on the Death of Venice is slightly premature and a product of
ignorance by writers who obviously have not visited La Serenissima for decades.
Unfortunately it is this kind of ignorance which has also infested the citizens of
Venice who appear more concerned with raking in money from the city’s booming tourist
trade then promoting a viable remedy against tidal waters or defending their city against the
commercial opportunists peddling fabulously expensive recipes to ‘Save Venice.’
The sad truth is only a small number of concerned local activists have bravely
battled against a government project, a gigantic and highly dubious undertaking, to
regulate the tidal flow in the lagoon, a project named MOSe.
Not surprisingly similar public lethargy has made sure our corporate-political systems
manage to perpetuate, inflate, enrich and expand. After all the people who run our lives rotate
between company boards and government ministries, with one foot in each camp, ensuring the
welfare and growth of their corporation and the future of this lucrative corporate-political
symbiosis.
The city of Venice is no different. When billionaire Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
two years ago promoted a four billion Euro mega-scheme to save the city from freak high water
few took the trouble to find out exactly what this monstrosity in steel and concrete would do to
their watery habitat. After all the consortium running the lucrative project included many of the
major Italian corporations, buddies of the premier, all participating in what was hailed then by
critics as the biggest handout of public funds for decades.
The warnings of ecologists, environmentalists, engineers and dike experts that the
scheme was an outdated abomination, rejected decades ago by expert dike nations like
Holland, and would not save Venice from sinking deeper into its lagoon was simply ignored. So
was the argument the project would compromise the natural flushing system of the lagoon and
change the lagoon’s environment. Ignored too was the presentation of far cheaper, far
more effective projects to keep the tidal water at bay. Brushed aside was the common
complaint only a portion of the money spent on the project would suffice to further
renovate the lagoon banks and the city’s canals, a far the most efficient measures
to combat high water.
All objections fell on deaf ears. Most Venetians argued the great Silvio was finally
doing something to save Venice from getting its feet wet.
This public apathy allowed the construction to go ahead, despite serious doubts
about its legitimacy. The MOSe was never approved by the city’s municipal council and the
European Commission has stated the MOSe’s environmental standards do not conform to
European specifications. Even worse, under Venetian law dating back centuries, all
projects altering the city’s water courses must be reversible. The MOSe is not.
For those who oppose the project the greatest hope is the knowledge funds to finish
the eight-year-long works will not be found in Italy’s impoverished public coffers. Nor will the
35 million Euro a year for the project’s maintenance cost.
But building goes on. Vast amounts of concrete have been poured onto the lagoonâ
€™s sea floor to house the inflatable steel floodgates across the three channels that connect
the lagoon to the Adriatic Sea.
While Berlusconi was Prime Minister an active public relations network constantly
praised the project, aggressively vilified detractors and threatened with legal action the small
No-MOSe group that organized protests on work-sites and in the city.
But with the Great Communicator gone the municipality of Venice in May decided
perhaps it should take another look at the project, at least this way in the future the city fathers
would not be blamed for its failure.
By now, however, large amounts of money are circulating tied to the project, much of
it among constituents of the very councilors trying to bring some order into floodgate sites no
one in their right mind considers today a solution to the problems of Venice. In fact the so-called
MOSE project is rather counter-productive for it erodes the badly needed funds to shore up the
lagoon banks and canals, the main weapons of the battle against rising waters.
But the worst is yet to come: The city council now concurs that the expensive
floodgates will only be raised at exceptional high tide, perhaps once or twice a year. For the
rest of the year the autumn and winter high tides will continue to flood Venice an average sixty
times annually, forcing citizen and visitors to walk on duckboards, inundating ground floors and
weakening the city’s foundations.
One would have thought with this knowledge about the negative side of the project the
council voted at once to halt all works pending further investigation of the MOSE’s viability.
Not so. Perhaps there is already too much money at stake. Anyway the council took the Italian
solution: Let the works continue (until the money runs out) and create one of those interminable
committees to examine the project and see what alterations can be made, obviously to
accommodate everyone concerned. There is no talk of scrapping the MOSe which is rising like
a monstrosity at the entrances to the lagoon.
After all during the decisive Council meeting on the project’s future in June barely
a hundred concerned Venetians turned up to protest against this white elephant.
ends
IS VENICE DOOMED BY APATHY AND NOT BY
WATER?
If the world seems in a precarious state these days much of it is due to the apathy
of a public which seems to take its political guidelines from corporate-controlled television
broadcasts and corporate-controlled dailies, rarely casts its vote unless compelled and if it
does, usually votes in ignorance. A good example of this apathy and misinformation is the city
of Venice. As everyone knows La Serenissima has been sinking into its lagoon for centuries
and probably will continue to sink for more centuries despite doomsday predictions it is about to
vanish.
The sinking phenomenon has caused more anxiety among fans of Venice abroad
then among its own citizen. The English dailies this month even advised the concerned English
public against further financial donations to save a city they said was doomed to die and now
only served as a Disneyland theme park where tourists are fleeced. The Times of London
even claimed Venice was ‘dissolving itself like a lump of sugar in a tea cup’
ignoring not a single Venetian palace has ‘dissolved’ itself in the millennium
long history of the city - and is unlikely to do so according to the experts.
The rationale of the Times exhortation ‘to let the city die’ could have been
applied decades, even centuries ago. But then the writers of these calls for a Venetian
euthanasia would never have seen the great city on water. Instead of letting Venice die
international and Italian financial aid has turned the city into a far prettier and much renovated
metropolis over the last decade. The Save Venice funds not only renovated old Palazzi but
reinforced the banks and canals of a city-republic unique in its watery habitat and famous for its
cultural and artistic treasures. In spite of its age and rising ocean-levels this constant
maintenance work has cleaned canals and shored up the banks on the lagoon reducing the
effects of high tides and virtually eliminating Venice’s much vilified canal odors. In fact the
English media’s obituary on the Death of Venice is slightly premature and a product of
ignorance by writers who obviously have not visited La Serenissima for decades.
Unfortunately it is this kind of ignorance which has also infested the citizens of
Venice who appear more concerned with raking in money from the city’s booming tourist
trade then promoting a viable remedy against tidal waters or defending their city against the
commercial opportunists peddling fabulously expensive recipes to ‘Save Venice.’
The sad truth is only a small number of concerned local activists have bravely
battled against a government project, a gigantic and highly dubious undertaking, to
regulate the tidal flow in the lagoon, a project named MOSe.
Not surprisingly similar public lethargy has made sure our corporate-political systems
manage to perpetuate, inflate, enrich and expand. After all the people who run our lives rotate
between company boards and government ministries, with one foot in each camp, ensuring the
welfare and growth of their corporation and the future of this lucrative corporate-political
symbiosis.
The city of Venice is no different. When billionaire Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
two years ago promoted a four billion Euro mega-scheme to save the city from freak high water
few took the trouble to find out exactly what this monstrosity in steel and concrete would do to
their watery habitat. After all the consortium running the lucrative project included many of the
major Italian corporations, buddies of the premier, all participating in what was hailed then by
critics as the biggest handout of public funds for decades.
The warnings of ecologists, environmentalists, engineers and dike experts that the
scheme was an outdated abomination, rejected decades ago by expert dike nations like
Holland, and would not save Venice from sinking deeper into its lagoon was simply ignored. So
was the argument the project would compromise the natural flushing system of the lagoon and
change the lagoon’s environment. Ignored too was the presentation of far cheaper, far
more effective projects to keep the tidal water at bay. Brushed aside was the common
complaint only a portion of the money spent on the project would suffice to further
renovate the lagoon banks and the city’s canals, a far the most efficient measures
to combat high water.
All objections fell on deaf ears. Most Venetians argued the great Silvio was finally
doing something to save Venice from getting its feet wet.
This public apathy allowed the construction to go ahead, despite serious doubts
about its legitimacy. The MOSe was never approved by the city’s municipal council and the
European Commission has stated the MOSe’s environmental standards do not conform to
European specifications. Even worse, under Venetian law dating back centuries, all
projects altering the city’s water courses must be reversible. The MOSe is not.
For those who oppose the project the greatest hope is the knowledge funds to finish
the eight-year-long works will not be found in Italy’s impoverished public coffers. Nor will the
35 million Euro a year for the project’s maintenance cost.
But building goes on. Vast amounts of concrete have been poured onto the lagoonâ
€™s sea floor to house the inflatable steel floodgates across the three channels that connect
the lagoon to the Adriatic Sea.
While Berlusconi was Prime Minister an active public relations network constantly
praised the project, aggressively vilified detractors and threatened with legal action the small
No-MOSe group that organized protests on work-sites and in the city.
But with the Great Communicator gone the municipality of Venice in May decided
perhaps it should take another look at the project, at least this way in the future the city fathers
would not be blamed for its failure.
By now, however, large amounts of money are circulating tied to the project, much of
it among constituents of the very councilors trying to bring some order into floodgate sites no
one in their right mind considers today a solution to the problems of Venice. In fact the so-called
MOSE project is rather counter-productive for it erodes the badly needed funds to shore up the
lagoon banks and canals, the main weapons of the battle against rising waters.
But the worst is yet to come: The city council now concurs that the expensive
floodgates will only be raised at exceptional high tide, perhaps once or twice a year. For the
rest of the year the autumn and winter high tides will continue to flood Venice an average sixty
times annually, forcing citizen and visitors to walk on duckboards, inundating ground floors and
weakening the city’s foundations.
One would have thought with this knowledge about the negative side of the project the
council voted at once to halt all works pending further investigation of the MOSE’s viability.
Not so. Perhaps there is already too much money at stake. Anyway the council took the Italian
solution: Let the works continue (until the money runs out) and create one of those interminable
committees to examine the project and see what alterations can be made, obviously to
accommodate everyone concerned. There is no talk of scrapping the MOSe which is rising like
a monstrosity at the entrances to the lagoon.
After all during the decisive Council meeting on the project’s future in June barely
a hundred concerned Venetians turned up to protest against this white elephant.
ends