
Venice Battles Flooding Amid Highest Tide in 50 Years - lisper
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/world/europe/venice-flood.html
======
riccardomc
Maybe it's because I am Italian, but I am honestly shocked by the lack of
empathy and blatant superficiality of some of the comments, especially given
the usual insightfulness of HN.

There's the guy who's been to Venice "multiple times" who's explaining why it
would be better if it sank. Another one had a conversation at a "dinner party
about vacation homes" and how are a bad investment. The other: "Venice is
Atlantis of the 21th century", and finally "they shouldn't have built Venice
on 118 islands in the first place".

Venice is a real city, home to thousands of people that are currently
struggling with the damage that all of this caused. Their businesses are
threatened. An entire city and region is on its knees. It is a site of
undescribable historical and artistic beauty, a treasure that belongs to all
mankind.

Seriously, some of you might have been too deep into your ARR and TSLA and
lost the ability to empathize.

Maybe this news doesn't belong on HN at all.

~~~
rstuart4133
Sorry, no, Venice isn't what I'd call a real city. It's a tourist trap.
AFAICT, the only people who sleep there are tourists. The "locals" who service
the place commute from outside of the town.

When I went there I was at first enchanted by it, but as I did what I normally
and go looking the social differences I didn't find it for a while - it is all
shops, restaurants and hotels. So I kept walking. It was only one I was well
out of the older parts, and well away from the tourists did I see the sorts of
things I visit foreign places to experience. Things like a coffin being lifted
down from a house window using a motorised ladder, a grocer in a largish boat
overflowing with produce, stopping every so often to let the local women on.

I have no idea how these real places are fairing, but I suspect much better
because the walls of the canals were higher.

As for the tourist trap that is the heart of Venice - this will just add to
it's reputation. Parts of St Marks are under water every day. Walking through
a church, a very well maintained and elegant church at that, and sitting on a
pew wait the salt water lapping an inch or so below your bum is a novel
experience. I heartily recommend it to everyone.

But once crass the commercialism of the place begins to grate take a walk to
the real Venice, where the locals are born, marry and die. It's gritty, real
and nowhere near as pretty, but I remember my walk through there far better
than I remember Venice itself. I do hope the people who live there are OK.

~~~
thefz
> Sorry, no, Venice isn't what I'd call a real city. It's a tourist trap.
> AFAICT, the only people who sleep there are tourists. The "locals" who
> service the place commute from outside of the town.

Sorry but no. The entirety of my mother's family still lives there, in the
"city" city. A lot of people still live and work in the inner Venezia. There
are some commuters especially from Mestre, but that is what you expect with
any medium sized center with satellite smaller towns around.

Also "Venice" is quite misleading because aside the usual tourist
destinations, the city has quite a large horizontal development inland. You
contraddict yourself stating first that Venice is only a tourist trap with no
locals and then stating that you saw local women buy groceries, and inviting
people to visit the "real" Venice, which of course you saw, which of course
has a resident population.

Your vacation-long experience might not necessarily reflect the truth.

------
mirkonasato
The MOSE project is supposed to protect Venice from high tides, with mobile
barriers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project)

Unfortunately it's been under planning first and then construction for
decades, mired by corruption scandals, delays, and billions of Euros in cost
overruns. It's currently scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2021, having
first been put out to tender in 1975.

~~~
fwip
I hear some people saying that by the time it's built, rising sea levels may
have already obsoleted it.

~~~
droithomme
Venice was built on marshy landfill in a lagoon and has sunk 23cm in the last
century. This is the main problem here. It will continue sinking and there's
no way to make that stop as you can't build stable foundations under an entire
stone city built in the actual sea on top of mushy mud and not anything
stable. Venice is and always has been inevitably doomed due to poor
engineering choices made centuries ago. Same goes for much of New Orleans.

~~~
abainbridge
Interesting. It looks like the sea level has also risen by about 17.5cm in the
last century - [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-
indica...](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-
sea-level)

------
Lucadg
I hate sharing FB but this is where we can see some recent pics and videos as
posted by Venitians today
[https://www.facebook.com/1292366660/posts/10215308807895434/](https://www.facebook.com/1292366660/posts/10215308807895434/)

~~~
personlurking
And here [1] you can see what the region would look like with rising
coastlines, based on a Climate Central interactive map (which can be used for
any global coastal city).

1 -
[https://ss2.climatecentral.org/index.html#8/44.984/11.272](https://ss2.climatecentral.org/index.html#8/44.984/11.272)

~~~
Udik
Interesting, but a bit deceiving. When selecting "current coast" it shows the
current coastlines, but selecting even a single foot of sea level rise it
draws the new coast respecting the actual elevation. The problem with this is
that in several places, for example around Venice and in the Netherlands, the
land is already below the sea level, so they appear to flood even with a
single inch of water. Which is not the case.

------
40acres
I was a dinner party when the topic of vacation homes comes came up. We were
all young professionals in tech so a vacation home in middle age was not out
of the question.

When I mentioned my reluctance to invest in beach front property everyone
seemed confused -- I don't own a home yet but it makes me wonder, how much is
climate change being considered as a factor for family real estate? I'm sure
commercial developers are taking these things into account but are normal
people?

~~~
eloff
The sea level rise is slow enough, at less than 1cm per year projected average
to 2100, that it doesn't have a material affect on your decision, unless the
land is freakishly flat and low (like a sand atoll somewhere) So respectfully,
I think your aversion is more emotional than logical.

Lots of emotional down-voting going on. I'm still right.

~~~
Retric
A difference of even 2 feet makes a difference across huge swaths of US
beachfront property. A storm surges can get up to 34.8 feet at current sea
levels. Moving that to 36.8 would both more frequently destroy structures
within 35’ of sea level, and B put massive numbers of new buildings at risk.

~~~
eloff
You just classified the difference in storm surge as 6%. That is too small to
be a defining part of your final decision.

~~~
Retric
People want to build as close to the ocean as they can, they also want to
build in a safety factors After all that 34.8’ is the highest level ever
recorded. Is 30’ is good enough how about 25’? And when you go down that road
it gets very non linear with 10’ being almost worthless and 40’ near total
protection from storm surges.

Thus it’s not a question of absolute levels, but rather safety factors and
insurance premiums that are at issue.

PS: Though this is simplified as it’s both storm surge and high waves that
cause problems, but that’s another story.

~~~
eloff
If you're making any decision with only 6% tolerances on one side and vague
things like storms and tides on the other, you're in trouble.

I just don't see that as making the difference in a decision to buy or not
buy. I don't even see it making the list of things to weigh.

~~~
Retric
Ahh, you’re still thinking if that as 6%. Hatteras NC is 50 miles long
generally less than a mile wide and the absolutely highest point is 56’ above
sea level. More topically for these islands Nags Head, North Carolina averages
3’ above sea level at high tide. People build everything on stilts and It’s
simply accepted that it’s all temporary at some level.

As the barrier islands essentially make up the only beach front property
across half of North Carolina, that’s the only real option for vacation homes
like this. That and fishing support a relatively small population, but the
total investment on these islands adds into the billions.

In that context 2’ means far more than a 6% difference. Little there can
withstand a cat 4+ hurricane even without the ocean, however slowly loosing
inches is already making a difference.

~~~
eloff
Well 2ft of 3ft is no longer 6%, that's a material difference that matters if
you want to buy there.

What I would consider is what it would cost to raise the land by that 2ft. I
think that's so little by comparison to what the land costs that you can
practically discount the effect of climate change on your decision.

People hated on all of my comments in this entire thread, but at the end of
the day I put my faith in the math and I think they're all wrong and I'm
right.

------
dr_dshiv
Could Venice be raised, as Chicago once was?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago)

~~~
simonebrunozzi
It might be feasible, but I doubt the Italian government has the
organizational ability to rally scientists and engineers around it. (I'm
Italian, it's IMHO, but I speak with some past experience).

------
carapace
Miami in 10 years, San Francisco in 25.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Have you looked at San Francisco’s topography? It isn’t flat....all of the
west coast cities are pretty safe.

~~~
namirez
Topography?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Fixed, thanks.

------
hanoz
Why has the title been changed from "Venice Battles Flooding Amid Highest Tide
in 50 Years" to "Venice Floods Because of Highest Tide in 50 Years"?

It hasn't flooded _because of_ the record tide. I thought for a moment this
meant that the barrage had been completed but was today overwhelmed.

~~~
lisper
The NYT changed the headline after the story was submitted. (I'm the original
submitter.)

~~~
hanoz
Ah. I should have suspected that and phrased my query accordingly. Apologies
for any slight on your good name.

~~~
lisper
No worries :-)

------
xvx
Maybe don't build a city on 118 small islands and expect the water levels to
never ever change? Seems more like a failure to plan for the future.

~~~
SeanLuke
I imagine this was said in jest. But it's worth mentioning that Venice has
_sunk_ almost 10 inches in the last century. Even if water levels hadn't
changed -- and of course they have -- Venice would still be facing serious
problems.

~~~
ravenstine
I don't think it's in jest, and I actually agree with that statement to an
extent.

If humans weren't polluting the atmosphere, the climate would still be
changing. The only difference is time scale and possibly the temperature
delta.

This is why building cities right up against the shoreline isn't a very good
idea in the long term. And, no, you can have ports without building
metropolises right next to the water. Someone's going to say that I'm a
"climate denier" which is totally false because I believe in anthropogenic
global warming.

~~~
smacktoward
Scale is also the only difference between a beautiful snowflake and a
terrifying avalanche. It's the difference between drinking a refreshing glass
of water and being waterboarded.

Scale matters a lot.

~~~
michaelmrose
I really like these analogies. You are so right.

------
keiferski
Having been to Venice multiple times, I have somewhat of a contrarian view:
even if the entire city were underwater, it wouldn’t really change much.
Venice as an actual place to live died decades ago. It’s nothing more than
Disneyland at this point.

If it found itself under the Adriatic in 50 years, I imagine it would simply
become an underwater Disneyland. The architecture might actually be better
preserved for future generations; for example, had Venice sunk prior to the
mid-80’s, there wouldn’t be a McDonald’s there (yup, there’s a McDonald’s in
Venice.)

~~~
Lucadg
Venice is actually a great place to live if you don't prioritize for comfort
but appreciate other aspects of life.

I guess it really depends on each person but not having cars really makes up
for many other disadvantages.

Which makes you think how bad cars in the city are in general.

You don't really appreciate this until they are gone.

~~~
keiferski
Oh I think the idea of Venice is brilliant. Historically it must have been
incredible, when the palaces were actually in use and not simply museums. But
at this point the entire economy of the city is based on tourism. Any trace of
authentic life sunk a long time ago.

~~~
Lucadg
I can understand it feels like this, but I assure real people live and work
there, and there is a real local culture and authentic life.

I lived there and I lived in many other cities like Paris, London, Munich,
Krakow, Bangkok and Bali.

Venice is one of the most authentic cities of them all.

The language is alive and evolving.

It's a bit like the fight club, real locals recognize each others, while the
tourists think it's just a Disneyland.

Quite fascinating!

~~~
rayiner
Peoples' "authentic life" is finding a job, finding housing, finding a school
for the kids, interacting with neighbors, dealing with trash pickup and water
bills, etc. A tourist can never experience that. Even if you experience the
flooding with real Venetians, you're not going to deal with the water damage
for weeks afterward, or attempting to get insurance claims paid. But that's
"authentic life."

Charming restaurants, quirky bookshops, etc., that's not "authentic life."
That's frivolity. Sharing frivolities with the locals doesn't give you any
insight into their "authentic life." Tourism is _always Disneyland._ It's
always fake. It's just different versions of Disneyland for people of
different temperaments.

(It's funny you mention Bangkok. I was born in Bangkok. What exactly is less
"authentic" about it than Venice? How can a city even be less "authentic" than
another city?)

~~~
rectang
Au contraire: fantasy and frivolity are essential to an "authentic life".
Regardless of where you were born and what station you were born into.

------
GnarfGnarf
Venice is doomed. A beautiful civilization, the Atlantis of the Twenty-First
century.

~~~
Hoasi
And no, we won't be able to 3D-print it back to life, but ultimately that is
what time does, erasing civilizations.

------
orky56
Flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities that countries
& corporations are not acknowledging let alone paying for. Who's responsible
for compensating the businesses of Venice who are effected? Is it the
government of Venice? Italy? If history has taught us anything, these entities
are on their own.

~~~
the-dude
Are you stating that any flooding and other symptoms of climate change are
externalities of countries and corporations?

Would the earth be static if there were no countries or corporations?

~~~
wjnc
Uhm, I would answer that as a Yes (but I think you would disagree). It'd be a
subsistence level of existence for the several (tens of) millions of humans in
existence in that scenario, but one with hardly any human impact on the global
climate. The thought would be that massive specialisation led to our current
level of (material) wealth and that both countries and corporations are
signals of cooperation and thus facilite specialisation.

Even if I think of something like a Nozickian world as a starter, with
exchangeable money as a transaction facility for transferring information, I
immediately think we would see the roaming "tribes" as something akin to
corporations.

~~~
the-dude
Sea level has been rising thousands, ten thousands of years : 6-8k yrs ago, I
would be able to walk to the UK from NL.

The North Sea was inhatibed :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland)

~~~
eyko
The rate at which the sea levels rose was much slower and much of that water
was frozen in the arctic. The past couple of centuries are exceptionally
different.

~~~
the-dude
Would you care to back that up? If I DDG it
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=historic+sea+level+rise&t=ffab&ia=...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=historic+sea+level+rise&t=ffab&ia=web)

I end up at [https://skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-
Level-...](https://skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-
History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html) ( that's right ) :

"During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached
rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This
is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise."

Not relying on one opinion, I view the XKCD of the sibbling : no sources.

Next hit on DDG :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level)
:

"Observational and modeling studies of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps
indicate a contribution to a sea-level rise of 2 to 4 cm over the 20th
century. "

Which is very low.

Would you care to back up your statement?

~~~
JshWright
> Not relying on one opinion, I view the XKCD of the sibbling : no sources.

I'm having a hard time parsing that... Are you suggesting the XKCD graph lacks
sources?

------
Jakawao
Can we please keep these political hit job pieces off of HN? /s

