Trevi Fountain for a fee? Crazy idea, impractical, and would cause negative phenomena

I am deeply opposed to the proposal, but I say right away that the problem is not in the cost, whether it is 2 euros or 5 or 10. It is not about defending tourists from a payment. The reasons are quite different. Contrary to what Councillor Onorato is saying, it is difficult to create a fee barrier between the fountain and the square to keep thousands of people out without making a structure that is not invasive, because it cannot be enough to install an entrance and an exit as he says: in fact, the whole front is very low and is climbed over by everyone so they would have to at least raise a metal structure right in front. However, let’s go ahead and assume that they can come up with an aesthetically acceptable solution.

First of all, it is really the idea of dividing the fountain from the square that is crazy. To propose this division is to distort that work. The Baroque is based on the fusion of the arts and the interpenetration of architecture and urban planning: the Trevi fountain, along with the Spanish Steps, is a perfect example. The fountain leans against a palace using it as an architectural backdrop (with the well-known details of rocks turning into blocks at the corners) and uses the square as a theatrical space, from which one enters the fountain itself; the steps with the lower walking surface act as a connection and one wonders whether they are fountain or city; the very low basin offers a view opposite to that of classical fountains and invites one to enter; the real space and that of the artwork, the space of the viewer/visitor and that of the characters/sculptures merge. Divide the fountain from the square and you will kill both.

Second, given the number of people who want to go to Trevi every day, installing a barrier around it would disproportionately increase the crowds outside, on the square, either because most tourists do not document themselves or because they would go anyway to try to get in or just to see from the area around. The plaza is small, and you would be risking really dangerous situations and crowds of emergency and complaint. Indeed, not only the square but all the narrow streets around it, currently already crowded, would become almost unpassable. From a practical point of view, then, several negative phenomena would be created.

The alderman spoke of a 20-30 minute per person stay inside per ticket, while today the majority of people stay less time in the area near the pool, so a permanent “sold out” situation could also occur, with tourists willing to pay and wanting to enter but blocked by the lack of a ticket. Not to mention that the management of hundreds and thousands of people in front of the monuments in recent years has almost always been unsuccessful: it is one thing to talk about it, another to manage the crowds on the ground.

Lastly, every time tickets are put up and reservations and lines are created, the door is opened to cannibalistic tour operators, abusive individuals, line-jumpers and a whole world of illegality. And we are not saying this from hearsay, because we have been providing documents, information and photos to various journalists for years. Let us be careful before we open the doors to all this in Trevi as well.

Moreover, Trevi Fountain is a public monument built first and foremost for the Romans and should not be modified for the use of tourists. Needless to say, the Romans would not pay, of course we believe that, but to turn it into a pay site with a barrier is to take it away from its original meaning and purpose, its being a public “fountain,” an integral part of the city. If we start thinking about monuments in function of tourists, it means that we are losing sight of the meaning and purpose of the city. Rome must not become like Venice. Fortunately, we are still a long way off; we are saved by the fact that there are thousands of offices in our historic center, both government and private, but it is most serious that a councillor, albeit for Tourism, should think about turning a public monument into a tourist destination.

Above all, it is the words used by Onorato - those that his mind deep inside suggested to him - that worry us. Beyond what is told and mediated by the newspapers, he used some expressions to think about. The phrase “We want to make the visit to the Trevi Fountain really an experience” is fine if written by a tour operator, but not if said by Rome’s alderman, who should be concerned about something else. Above all, another sentence makes us cringe: “I believe that if at the Trevi Fountain we manage to introduce a mechanism that is successful, it is clear that we can make reflections on other priceless sites.” Basically, put crudely, the Municipality of Rome, after the tourist tax on tourists (instituted by previous juntas, but misused to fill budget gaps by all juntas) in order to make cash wants to “milk” as much as possible the monuments as well.

It is right that people should not enter the Fountain area with food, but two Urban Police teams could be put on site instead of one with more staff. There were long periods when the Vigili kept the tourists perfectly at bay, those in the field remember that (and it wasn’t 10 years ago), just decide the rules, make them known and then enforce them all the time. You have to invest in controls. It’s not like without a ticket you can’t put in Urban Police teams to stop people with food anyway.

What has the City of Rome done to communicate respect for the city and the rules to follow? For years we have proposed a serious communication campaign to get the principles about respecting the city across: of course it takes years and investment is needed, but no one has ever started. The truth is that a ticket is an easy gimmick, so you can say you have done something, you make the news and money also comes in to the City. All other solutions require planning, elaboration, coordination-what a struggle! Nobody really intends to decrease the number of tourists in Rome, because they are an asset for the whole city, for an incredible number of categories, from those who work there directly to those who do it without realizing it.

Tourism therefore needs to be better managed, not decreased. In fact, it is the whole city that needs to be better managed, because tourism suffers from the mismanagement of some of the city’s essential services, such as transportation, garbage, toilets, cabs, road system, etc. The historic center of Rome should be a limited traffic zone but it is already turned into an amusement park by hundreds of improperly used golf cars. The narrow streets are half occupied by restaurant patios, a situation now out of control. Almost every week those who work downtown have problems because events continue to be scheduled downtown instead of moving flows out. Not to mention the difficulty of getting monuments opened outside the usual ones, even for those who would have the desire to push the enhancement of other areas. Tourists continue to have to get coffee in bars in order to go to the bathroom, which is perfectly fine if you are three friends, but a problem for groups and especially for the disabled. 5-star hotels have grown and we would like conference tourism but we are not able to offer these guests what they would want out of hotels. These are just a few of the many problems that a Councillor for Tourism, Sports and Major Events should address. If the City of Rome were able to manage the city better, no one would have ever come up with a crazy idea like putting a ticket in Trevi.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.