I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, they aren't really changing all that much about the site. Regular visitation will remain mostly unchanged, this would be an additional...
I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, they aren't really changing all that much about the site. Regular visitation will remain mostly unchanged, this would be an additional offering to anyone willing to pay for a private tour before or after regular hours. I work for a historic site and museum that does similar things (though admittedly we are no where near as busy and famous as the Acropolis) and no one has ever batted an eye at private tours. They make our 'elevated donors' feel special which in turn leads to higher donations from them for showing them around and treating them like VIPs when they have guests in town. And importantly, it doesn't detract from our regular visitor experience in any way, it's purely an additional offering.
In her office overlooking a central Athens boulevard, Valakou said the culture ministry had taken the criticism onboard. The tours, it is estimated, could bring in up to €40,000 a day, with proceeds going to cash-starved cultural projects.
Historic preservation, and cultural services in general, cost a lot of money and are usually on the chopping block for things to cut or defund when things get tough. So being able to generate significant amounts of additional funding has to be a good thing (if said funds are utilized properly, of course).
But I totally understand OP's point that this will reserve the coolest parts of the day to those with the means to pay. And the easy counter argument that can be made to this whole thing is that they should just open the site earlier and close later. That way the crowds would hopefully dissipate a bit and everyone would be able to see the Acropolis during the cooler parts of the day. But they'd miss out on all that additional revenue from the private tours...
It's a tricky situation for sure, and I think a lot of it comes down to exactly how that additional revenue is used. If it gets directly reinvested into the preservation of the site and related projects, I think these private tours could be seen as a necessary evil to ensure the safety and longevity of the Acropolis (again, most people don't realize how expensive that can be). But if not utilized properly, then yeah, it's a slap in the face of anyone not wealthy enough to get their own VIP tour. Interesting moral dilemma in my opinion.
Greece gets hot in the summer. When I visited the Acropolis 6 years ago, it was almost unbearable. Being able to visit it when it's cooler would be huge, I'd be upset if I was a local.
Greece gets hot in the summer. When I visited the Acropolis 6 years ago, it was almost unbearable. Being able to visit it when it's cooler would be huge, I'd be upset if I was a local.
I don’t think locals care all that much. Note that none of them were interviewed for the article. Locals wouldn’t visit the acropolis very often to begin with, and if they were to, they can go in...
I don’t think locals care all that much. Note that none of them were interviewed for the article. Locals wouldn’t visit the acropolis very often to begin with, and if they were to, they can go in the winter. Since they, like, live in the area. Foreign tourist go in the summer because that’s when people have vacations.
I'd say this is the opposite of elitist and should be happening at all of our prized cultural/archeological sites. Cheap airfare and growing wealth around the world has allowed people to visit...
I'd say this is the opposite of elitist and should be happening at all of our prized cultural/archeological sites.
Cheap airfare and growing wealth around the world has allowed people to visit places that "average" people of only 80 years ago would not dream of going. This new level of accessibility has enriched the education and cultural awareness of millions, but harms these precious artifacts. The money people pay to visit these places often times do not cover the cost of the damage they are doing by being there.
The €5,000 private tour generates revenue that preserves these sites so current and future generations will still have something to visit. The private tour may get a better view, but they are subsidizing the cost of entry for everyone else. We are at a point in human civilization where there are enough people to necessitate new rules to protect public resources against the tragedy of the commons. The fact that Greece has found a way to preserve public access and maintain their cultural sites should be applauded.
If there is a shortage of available space, the correct thing to do is to use a lottery system. Have a lottery where all people, rich and poor alike, have equal access to it. The Acropolis is the...
Exemplary
If there is a shortage of available space, the correct thing to do is to use a lottery system. Have a lottery where all people, rich and poor alike, have equal access to it. The Acropolis is the quintessential temple to democracy. It shouldn't be corrupted with something that so flagrantly caters to the wealthy.
The maintenance concerns, while a legitimate concern, are not a legitimate reason to so pervert a sacred temple to our democrat traditions. Once you start creating a special "rich person lane," the main experience inevitably starts to suffer as the agency involves starts catering to them and neglecting everyone else. Look at the TSA and its anti-democratic fast lane systems; providing the well-off a means to buy their way around security lines, as though terrorists can't purchase a TSA fast lane pass. And walk into any airport, and you'll find the TSA wasting vast resources to cater to the wealthy. They'll have one person in front of a long line of ordinary people, while another agent in the rich person line sits there idle, seeing a person every couple of minutes.
Even if it makes some sense economically, there is an inherent value in keeping or society and its government small-d democratic. Governments should not offer fast lanes or superior experiences to those with wealth. If there is anything we should be able to agree on in a democratic society, it's basic equality under the law.
The Acropolis should not be perverted by the whims of the wealthy. If you need to raise more funds, charge admission and make the price a sliding scale based on person income and wealth. Don't give the wealthy a special experience because they're oh-so-special rich boys. Charge them more for the basic experience. While verifying everyone's income is a difficult task, it's doable if you're using an advanced lottery system, and it's likely little more work than creating a special rich-boys' club.
And I do not for a second buy the idea, that "we're just offering tours during otherwise closed hours!" If that's the case, then those are hours you could be offering more tours for regular non-oligarchs.
Anyone who can travel from another country to visit the Acropolis is wealthy. A person who spends all of their time working to survive does not have the resources to fund travel to another country...
Exemplary
Anyone who can travel from another country to visit the Acropolis is wealthy. A person who spends all of their time working to survive does not have the resources to fund travel to another country for leisure. Someone complaining that they are not allowed to have free reign in the cultural site of a country they are not a citizen of is a true first world problem.
The Acropolis belongs to the citizens of Greece. The ideas that came out of the Acropolis belong to everyone, but the building is not owned by everyone. Rich people paying money to visit the Acropolis is what allows the Greek people to maintain their cultural sites.
A pure lottery system would take from Greek people. There wouldn't be foreign money to help maintain these sites and there would be less people spending money in their businesses and paying their sales tax.
Systems that reduce the quality of a good or service to give a better experience to the wealthy is wrong, but this creates a new experience that wealthy people can use that improves the existing service that others can access.
Edit:
Also, TSA Precheck costs about $100 and lasts for 5 years. If you are flying often enough that saving 20 minutes each time you take a flight is important, you are paying thousands of dollars in airfare. That person should have $100 on hand. It's also a background check program, not a toll fee. There is a real person getting paid to process your application.
I don't see any problem with this. The ability to buy a better/faster/exclusive/more comfortable experience exists in so many places. The premium experience is funded by the people who are taking...
I don't see any problem with this. The ability to buy a better/faster/exclusive/more comfortable experience exists in so many places. The premium experience is funded by the people who are taking advantage of that experience, and in this case, that funding is likely large enough to make the whole thing better for everyone. If someone wasn't paying extra for it, it simply wouldn't exist.
Now, there definitely are cases where the standard experience suffers from the inclusion of a premium version. Fast-tracks at theme parks, for example, are one example. The flow of people through a line is constrained by the capacity of the ride (not by staffing or some other variable/adjustable cost), and allowing people to get in a shorter line does indeed make the standard line go slower. But since this Acropolis private tour program is being done before/after hours, the general admissions customers aren't losing out on anything as a result of this.
I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, they aren't really changing all that much about the site. Regular visitation will remain mostly unchanged, this would be an additional offering to anyone willing to pay for a private tour before or after regular hours. I work for a historic site and museum that does similar things (though admittedly we are no where near as busy and famous as the Acropolis) and no one has ever batted an eye at private tours. They make our 'elevated donors' feel special which in turn leads to higher donations from them for showing them around and treating them like VIPs when they have guests in town. And importantly, it doesn't detract from our regular visitor experience in any way, it's purely an additional offering.
Historic preservation, and cultural services in general, cost a lot of money and are usually on the chopping block for things to cut or defund when things get tough. So being able to generate significant amounts of additional funding has to be a good thing (if said funds are utilized properly, of course).
But I totally understand OP's point that this will reserve the coolest parts of the day to those with the means to pay. And the easy counter argument that can be made to this whole thing is that they should just open the site earlier and close later. That way the crowds would hopefully dissipate a bit and everyone would be able to see the Acropolis during the cooler parts of the day. But they'd miss out on all that additional revenue from the private tours...
It's a tricky situation for sure, and I think a lot of it comes down to exactly how that additional revenue is used. If it gets directly reinvested into the preservation of the site and related projects, I think these private tours could be seen as a necessary evil to ensure the safety and longevity of the Acropolis (again, most people don't realize how expensive that can be). But if not utilized properly, then yeah, it's a slap in the face of anyone not wealthy enough to get their own VIP tour. Interesting moral dilemma in my opinion.
Greece gets hot in the summer. When I visited the Acropolis 6 years ago, it was almost unbearable. Being able to visit it when it's cooler would be huge, I'd be upset if I was a local.
I don’t think locals care all that much. Note that none of them were interviewed for the article. Locals wouldn’t visit the acropolis very often to begin with, and if they were to, they can go in the winter. Since they, like, live in the area. Foreign tourist go in the summer because that’s when people have vacations.
One complaint is that these tours will monopolize the coolest time of day while Greece struggles with extreme heat.
I'd say this is the opposite of elitist and should be happening at all of our prized cultural/archeological sites.
Cheap airfare and growing wealth around the world has allowed people to visit places that "average" people of only 80 years ago would not dream of going. This new level of accessibility has enriched the education and cultural awareness of millions, but harms these precious artifacts. The money people pay to visit these places often times do not cover the cost of the damage they are doing by being there.
The €5,000 private tour generates revenue that preserves these sites so current and future generations will still have something to visit. The private tour may get a better view, but they are subsidizing the cost of entry for everyone else. We are at a point in human civilization where there are enough people to necessitate new rules to protect public resources against the tragedy of the commons. The fact that Greece has found a way to preserve public access and maintain their cultural sites should be applauded.
If there is a shortage of available space, the correct thing to do is to use a lottery system. Have a lottery where all people, rich and poor alike, have equal access to it. The Acropolis is the quintessential temple to democracy. It shouldn't be corrupted with something that so flagrantly caters to the wealthy.
The maintenance concerns, while a legitimate concern, are not a legitimate reason to so pervert a sacred temple to our democrat traditions. Once you start creating a special "rich person lane," the main experience inevitably starts to suffer as the agency involves starts catering to them and neglecting everyone else. Look at the TSA and its anti-democratic fast lane systems; providing the well-off a means to buy their way around security lines, as though terrorists can't purchase a TSA fast lane pass. And walk into any airport, and you'll find the TSA wasting vast resources to cater to the wealthy. They'll have one person in front of a long line of ordinary people, while another agent in the rich person line sits there idle, seeing a person every couple of minutes.
Even if it makes some sense economically, there is an inherent value in keeping or society and its government small-d democratic. Governments should not offer fast lanes or superior experiences to those with wealth. If there is anything we should be able to agree on in a democratic society, it's basic equality under the law.
The Acropolis should not be perverted by the whims of the wealthy. If you need to raise more funds, charge admission and make the price a sliding scale based on person income and wealth. Don't give the wealthy a special experience because they're oh-so-special rich boys. Charge them more for the basic experience. While verifying everyone's income is a difficult task, it's doable if you're using an advanced lottery system, and it's likely little more work than creating a special rich-boys' club.
And I do not for a second buy the idea, that "we're just offering tours during otherwise closed hours!" If that's the case, then those are hours you could be offering more tours for regular non-oligarchs.
Anyone who can travel from another country to visit the Acropolis is wealthy. A person who spends all of their time working to survive does not have the resources to fund travel to another country for leisure. Someone complaining that they are not allowed to have free reign in the cultural site of a country they are not a citizen of is a true first world problem.
The Acropolis belongs to the citizens of Greece. The ideas that came out of the Acropolis belong to everyone, but the building is not owned by everyone. Rich people paying money to visit the Acropolis is what allows the Greek people to maintain their cultural sites.
A pure lottery system would take from Greek people. There wouldn't be foreign money to help maintain these sites and there would be less people spending money in their businesses and paying their sales tax.
Systems that reduce the quality of a good or service to give a better experience to the wealthy is wrong, but this creates a new experience that wealthy people can use that improves the existing service that others can access.
Edit:
Also, TSA Precheck costs about $100 and lasts for 5 years. If you are flying often enough that saving 20 minutes each time you take a flight is important, you are paying thousands of dollars in airfare. That person should have $100 on hand. It's also a background check program, not a toll fee. There is a real person getting paid to process your application.
I don't see any problem with this. The ability to buy a better/faster/exclusive/more comfortable experience exists in so many places. The premium experience is funded by the people who are taking advantage of that experience, and in this case, that funding is likely large enough to make the whole thing better for everyone. If someone wasn't paying extra for it, it simply wouldn't exist.
Now, there definitely are cases where the standard experience suffers from the inclusion of a premium version. Fast-tracks at theme parks, for example, are one example. The flow of people through a line is constrained by the capacity of the ride (not by staffing or some other variable/adjustable cost), and allowing people to get in a shorter line does indeed make the standard line go slower. But since this Acropolis private tour program is being done before/after hours, the general admissions customers aren't losing out on anything as a result of this.