None of what you say actually refutes the argument: yes, rebuilding Venice would obviously cost a lot. And it would cost even more in lost revenue, considering it is unlikely anything new would continue to attract them.
And while it's true that few ("normal") people still live in Venice, it doesn't follow that what remains is as worthless as Disneyland. Nobody lives in the Louvre, and it's still a culturally significant place!
The idea that buildings in Venice are layered, with newer ones built on top of older ones when they succumbed to the water seems to be mythological.
Venice isn't going to do cotton candy. Picnicking on the streets will get you fined, and in some cases tourists have been thrown off the island for such uncultured behaviour.
Why is disneyland worthless? It employs lots of people. It makes kids happy. It is also old enough, by north american standards, that its iconic buildings could probably qualify for some sort of heritage status.
>> tourists have been thrown off the island for such uncultured behaviour.
I suspect that given a longer historical perspective, Disneyland will be seen as something other than "culturally vacuous". Much of our evaluation of "high" vs "low" culture is due to cultural snobbery. Low culture becomes more valued as time passes and the distinctions fade.
We nearly lost centuries of folk music because it wasn't considered worth preserving and only the efforts of a few weirdos like Bartok, Vaughan Williams and Alan Lomax who acted at just the the right moment saved some knowledge of it for future generations.
And it's not "folk" vs "commercial" either Commercial Art from the turn of the century (and before and after) is immensely interesting and of great aesthetic value to my eyes.
> Low culture becomes more valued as time passes and the distinctions fade.
On the other hand, things that are worth preserving tend to survive longer thanks to the effort put in preserving them. In other words, while age and cultural value correlate well, it might be cultural value to cause longer survival times and not the other way around.
It's also a good thing to make a distinction between cultural value in an anthropological sense (any relic is an historically important testimony of the past, but that doesn't make it good: a milk carton from today could be invaluable to a historian from 2000 years in the future) and actual craftsmanship and beauty.
> On the other hand, things that are worth preserving tend to survive longer thanks to the effort put in preserving them
I wonder if this is presupposing the point I'm trying to argue against. I'm arguing that contemporary tastes are often not a good measure of quality due to the biases introduced by being too close. I'm not sure where you've engaged with that point other than by merely stating a contrary position?
Not really. One of the aims of Main Street USA was to preserve the ambiance of a small town Main Street, which was already disappearing even before the 1950s. If the Haunted Mansion is so culturally vacuous, why did Cory Doctorow set a book there? I doubt it was just for the whuffie. Pop culture is culture.
> The idea that buildings in Venice are layered, with newer ones built on top of older ones when they succumbed to the water seems to be mythological.
It is pure invention. (Source: architect living near Venice).
Probably originated from Hollywood movies, where Venice features underground tombs, sewers and tunnels; and palaces can be sunk like ships hit by a torpedo.
And while it's true that few ("normal") people still live in Venice, it doesn't follow that what remains is as worthless as Disneyland. Nobody lives in the Louvre, and it's still a culturally significant place!
The idea that buildings in Venice are layered, with newer ones built on top of older ones when they succumbed to the water seems to be mythological.
Venice isn't going to do cotton candy. Picnicking on the streets will get you fined, and in some cases tourists have been thrown off the island for such uncultured behaviour.