As we continue to discuss the survival of Venice through both the onslaught of the sea and of its many tourists, I can't help but think that a basic level, the problems are the same. Of course they have different effects on the landscape and require very different approaches to 'solutions,' but both tourists and the sea are something without whom Venice, at this point in history at least, cannot live. Both threaten to overwhelm the city with their presence, and yet each are vital elements that hold an essential part of Venice's character.

Davis and Marvin highlight the long history of tourism in Venice, and the adeptness of the Venetians to tailor their customs to fit tourists needs, and maximize profits. The preservation of the character of historical Venice would not be so imperative without the desires of millions of people backing that undertaking, would they? I think of an old "Main Street America" town on the Mississippi in comparison. It is similar in size to Venice's current population, though a bit smaller. Once, it was a major port for transporting exported goods from the Midwest down through New Orleans, and for distributing goods from the South. The town is no longer necessssary for transportation, or industry, because the northern Mississippi isn't the center of trade. Because of its out-of-the-way location, the town does not attract tourists, and it slowly dies. Most residents have been there since birth, and over 50% of the population is on welfare. Of course there are a lot of factors that complicate and differentiate the two cities, but because Venice is now so dependent on tourism, I think that to construct an idea about the future of Venice, we must include the tourists, and while being critical of their activities, attempt to find the potential in the good tourists can bring. Perhaps a new perspective on the city. And at the very least, an appreciation of what is there.