Relocating Venice, along with its inhabitants and historic landmarks, to save it from the sea? The idea, presented in a new study

Imagine 300 years from now: Venice is no longer where we know it, but rebuilt elsewhere, with its inhabitants and even its historic monuments relocated many miles inland. This is not a science-fiction plot, but a real scenario considered in a recent study published in Scientific Reports. The most radical idea is precisely this: to physically relocate the city in order to save it from the rising sea, which threatens to wipe it off the map. We are used to thinking that the solutions for Venice are always and exclusively technical: barriers, dykes, embankments, and the famous MOSE project. But the new perspective says: If nature won't stop, then the city must move. It is not just a matter of defending the foundations, but of accepting that, in certain cases, survival requires a complete reinvention, even at the cost of dismantling and reassembling history piece by piece. Behind this proposal are individuals such as Piero Lionello, a climatologist at the University of Salento, and Robert Nicholls, an expert on coastal adaptation. Lionello has a statement that is quite disconcerting: “There is no optimal adaptation strategy.” This means that no option, not even the most expensive one, guarantees that today’s Venice will be saved as it is. Nicholls adds: “The costs are incomplete; the cultural value of Venice cannot be quantified.” And then there are the numbers: €500 million to €4.5 billion for dams, over €30 billion to close the lagoon, and up to €100 billion to relocate the city. But the real cost would be time: it would take 30 to 50 years to implement any of these measures, and the risk is that it would be too late. One fact is particularly striking: researchers have calculated that the current mobile barriers, such as the MOSE system, can only withstand a sea level rise of up to 1.25 meters (4.1 feet). In a pessimistic scenario, this threshold could be reached as early as 2300, at which point the alternatives become drastic. Imagine the debate among the Venetians: should they continue to defend themselves, isolate the city with new dams, close the lagoon with a super-embankment, or accept the idea of a collective exodus, in which history is saved but relocates? There is one human element you cannot overlook: behind every strategy lies a question about what truly matters. The well-being of the residents? Preserving traditions? The preservation of monuments, or the very survival of the community? No decision is neutral. And here comes the provocation that is almost always missing: after all, we are obsessed with material preservation, but perhaps the true identity of a city lies in the people who live in it and tell its story, rather than in its bricks and mortar. Venice could survive even without the lagoon, if its inhabitants carry its memory and culture with them. Perhaps the question we should be asking is not how to save the stones, but how to save the history that lives within them. The phrase that sticks in my mind is this: sometimes, to save a city, you have to be willing to let it go where it needs to go. If thinking about relocating Venice has made you see the problem of climate change in a new light, you can indicate this on Lara Notes with I'm In – it's a way of saying that this idea is now part of your way of thinking. And if tomorrow you discuss this surreal yet realistic idea with someone over dinner or at a bar, on Lara Notes you can tag the person you were with using Shared Offline, so the conversation isn't lost. This content comes from Wired Italia and has saved you at least 10 minutes compared to the original article.