Florence's Postcard Problem: Who Pays for Overtourism

Skift's analysis of overtourism in Iceland and Puerto Rico has exposed a troubling pattern: the machinery built to manage mass tourism in wealthy destinations does not protect the poor. The framework assumes that locals can absorb visitor pressure, that housing markets can adapt, that cultural sites can sustain unlimited footfall. In Florence, that assumption has already broken down.

The Tuscan capital has become a case study in this dynamic. According to Skift, overtourism management typically benefits those with capital—property owners who profit from short-term rentals, luxury hoteliers, tour operators—while pricing out the workers who serve them. The same story plays out in the Oltrarno, where artisans' workshops have given way to souvenir shops, and in the centre, where resident families have fled to the periphery.

What distinguishes Florence is the added layer of heritage stewardship. The city is not just a destination; it is a museum, a UNESCO site, a repository of Renaissance art. The visitor economy that sustains it also threatens to hollow it out—a contradiction that the foreign press has begun to scrutinise more closely.