We are witnessing the demise of spontaneous tourism – and all our holidays will suffer

The rise of the pre-booking-essential attraction is sounding a death knell for the joy of impulsive travel

Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
The announcement that Pompeii is to put a 20,000-a-day limit on its visitor numbers from November 15, touched a nerve. It implies that we will now have to book in advance when visiting the site. And it is another confirmation that we are reaching the point where the only way to see a significant number of key sights and museums is to buy tickets a few days ahead.
The days when you could spontaneously change your plans on a short break to a major tourist destination are over. And in my view, this is a very bad thing.
Perhaps you think I am exaggerating. It’s true that at Pompeii – which last year saw a 34 per cent year-on-year increase in visitor numbers to nearly four million – the limit is aimed mostly at reducing the crowds on the first Sunday of each month, when admission is free. On that day in October this year, a record high of 36,000 crammed into the site. But it will still affect a few other dates each year and, if tourism continues to grow at the current rates, that figure is also certain to increase.
Generally, the number of museums and attractions where crowds are being managed by capacity restrictions and advance booking requirements is also steadily increasing. I have had some raw experiences of my own on a couple of trips recently. Three weeks ago, ahead of a visit to Florence, I suddenly remembered that I wouldn’t be able to see Michelangelo’s David – one of the key reasons I was going there – unless I had reserved a time slot at the Accademia Museum. I only just managed to book one – at a highly inconvenient time –  and I failed completely to get into the Uffizi. 
Then last week, I was briefly in Paris, and I needed to check something I was writing about in the Louvre, where, in 2023, a decision was taken to limit daily admissions to 30,000. Prior to Covid-19, the museum could welcome up to 45,000 people on its most crowded days. Reducing this would make visiting on busy days a more pleasurable experience, said the museum’s director.
So I learned from my Florence trip and got organised a week in advance. Even then, and even though it was by now early November, some Louvre entry times were already fully booked, and when I checked on the day, most times were greyed out.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press has reported that the authorities in Rome are considering introducing restrictions on access to the Trevi fountain from next spring. The proposals would mean visitors must book online and pay €2 (£1.70) for a 30-minute visit. Last autumn, the Acropolis in Athens also introduced a 20,000 daily visitor cap. When I tried to book a time slot online at 7am in mid November, none were available until the following day. 
Had I been in Athens, I could probably have got in eventually, if I had been prepared to lose valuable sightseeing time by waiting in a long queue. But even this option is no longer available in some sights. The Forbidden City in Beijing (which now caps daily visitor numbers at 40,000) doesn’t sell any tickets on the day – you have no choice but to reserve in advance. Other sights, like the London Eye, take a different approach, penalising spontaneous visitors by charging significantly more (£42 per person) for same-day reservations as for advance booking (£29).
Perhaps you think all this shouldn’t really be a problem. Maybe it’s a good thing to put a limit on numbers and it will ensure – as the Louvre director hopes – that visiting these super-popular sights is more bearable. Those who are really committed to seeing a particular sight or museum will still be able to – their commitment will translate into better preparation and organisation. 
But one of the problems with having to book your admission is you turn it into a different kind of experience. Visiting a museum is reduced to timetabling – a sight to tick off, not a resource to inspire. How long does it take to “see” the Louvre? Perhaps you allow two hours, or three. But what if you are bored or tired after an hour, or so inspired that you want to stay all day? If you have other visits booked and paid for you will have to re-jig or sacrifice the arrangements. The enjoyment of art needs to allow for mood and chance, inspiration and reflection. Regimented arrangements strangle it.
The spontaneity problem is compounded by the fact that, even if you have a ticket, you may have to wait. I arrived promptly for my time slot at both the Academia and the Louvre and in each case I still had to queue for a good 15 minutes just to get in. That’s partly because of the increasing need for extra security and partly because of inefficiency by the institutions concerned. Those that charge are reaping a huge dividend. They need to invest in streamlining the admission arrangements. 
There could, of course, be some upsides to limiting numbers. Perhaps some of the smaller museums will benefit from an increase in visitors who are shut out of their more famous rivals. Perhaps too the pressure will be spread more evenly across the year. Certainly, for me, the most appealing time for indoor sightseeing is now December-February.
But overall I fear we are witnessing the end of the days when museum visits could be spontaneous and inspirational. When you can pop in and concentrate on a few paintings, rather than wear yourself down with scheduled sightseeing fatigue.
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email