Is tourism a problem? It depends who you ask, but it's impact has been feared and debated for a very long time as an issue. Even way back in 1972 when many of us were still living life in black and white, and cable was part of your corduroys instead of your TV, tourism's impact in the Napa Valley was being reviewed and questioned.
Some things have have remained the same today but the narrator in the above news piece offered an interesting view into tasting rooms of the day when he said tourism was "important to PR, and to a lesser extent, sales."
You see, tasting rooms back in the day weren't put in place to sell wine. That's what distributors did. Tasting rooms were nice-to-haves. My how those days have changed!
Today tasting rooms and tourism are linked to the survival of family wineries. Direct sales represent 60% of an average winery's sales, and tourism is the lifeblood of the family winery. Without tourism and direct sales, I'd make an educated guess that 60% of the wine business as we know it would fail.
Progress or Too Much of a Good Thing?
In 1972 the Sonoma Ag Commissioner reported record gross farm income was led by milk production - not wine. Grape production was well down the list alongside cattle and apple production. Zinfandel was the largest planted variety followed by Carignane and Petite Sirah. 12,500 acres were planted to red grapes and 4,500 were planted to white.
Today winegrape production in Sonoma has consumed 62,000 acres of land which is an 11.5% compound annual growth rate since that report.
In the same year, Napa's Ag Commissioner reported grapes were the number one crop followed by cattle for meat. The Napa valley had almost 8,000 producing acres in grapes with Cabernet leading the way, followed by a close tie with Petite Sirah, Pinot Noir, and Chardonnay. Cabernet acreage had almost doubled in the early decade as prune orchards were being pulled.
Compare that to the present with reported planted acreage in Napa of nearly 44,000 acres and half that planted to cabernet. Cattle for meat doesn't show up as an important part of Napa ag outputs at this point. For all intents and purposes, Napa is fully planted to wine grapes now. There is virtually no available land to plant. The growth rate in planted vineyards since 1972 has averaged 12.7% per year.
The Scourge of Tourism
Heavy Traffic In Napa - 1975 |
May 1972 was the date the above video clip ran on KPIX in the Bay Area. The video focuses on the problem tourism was causing and it's interesting to note some of the comments: parking lots are full, there is no tourism season anymore, and there were over 500,000 visitors making their way to the Napa Valley adding to traffic described as "the Bayshore Freeway during rush hour." It's not hard to imagine the reporter adding in something about "event center wineries" which is a derisive term that has been successfully embedded into the debate by the current anti-change contingent.
The Worst Fears Realized?
There are a lot more visitors to Napa today, and there are a lot more wineries too which makes the parking for this growing business far more tolerable. Is that a bad thing?
There is no question that fashion is better today than back in the 1970's when I dressed in Angels Flight cords for a party. But was it worse living in the Napa Valley in 1972 or is it worse today in 2016 with all the additional tourism? Was all that fear justified in the news report above?
Is Evolution and Change Bad?
A Sonoma State University survey noted 88% of locals said wineries had a positive or very positive impact on their quality of life. Ninety four percent of the regions inhabitants said the wine industry contributed positively to the beauty and culture of the reason. But just like the 1972 video above, 63% think the industry and tourism contributes to traffic and congestion. The less than positive findings on traffic aren't enough to offset the very positive feelings for the wine business as a whole so on the whole, those are pretty positive findings!
Through the Eyes of Someone Who Saw it All
Interestingly. unlike so many who today want to "return things to the way they were," Mr. Mondavi didn't. He saw the past as difficult. He spoke in clear terms about the challenges of the past, about how hard his parents had to work to get by.
While many people romanticize the past and their childhood remembrances, they forget the challenges faced by those who came before us. Those difficulties are removed from memory in favor of the life portrayed in the 1993 movie the Sandlot but that's not real life. Peter Mondavi had this to say about the past:
- Prohibition: We did what we had to to survive. We might have stretched a few laws.
- Repeal: We just worked. No root stock, no equipment, no experienced winemakers.
- The 60's: There really wasn't a consumer market yet. Everything was an experiment.
- The Golden Years of the Napa Valley: Today is the best we've ever been. We are all so lucky, but our best days are still ahead. We are such a young business.
I loved that last answer. Here is a man who understands context. He's seen the Napa Valley through it's most difficult period, through the growth discussed in the video at the top, and even at 100+ he saw the future as bright. Today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better! He saw the tasting room as a key component of success and invested millions in the development of the Krug Visitation center to support the changes he witnessed.
The Right Answer to the Scourge of Tourism
I don't see tourism as a scourge and truth be told, there are very few people who do:
- If you ask locals in the Central Coast or the North Coast where surveys have been run by colleges, the answer is the wine business improves the quality of life. Tourism impacts life, but it's part of the package to have success in the wine business and the quality of life wineries produce.
- The tourists all want to return to wine country for another visit. It cant be that bad can it?
- According to statistics from the various County Offices, tourism adds immensely to the coffers in the form of local taxes. Those are taxes the locals don't have to pay!
- Ask the veterans of the wine business and they don't view tourism as a scourge either. They see tourism as hospitality. They welcome visitors.
- Ask the charities throughout the nation who each year receive tens of millions of dollars from events where tourists come and leave their hard-earned cash. They will say they like tourists just fine
The question about tourism was asked in 1972 and it's being asked again in the press. But is tourism really that much of a problem?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weigh in with Your Thoughts and Opinions!!
- Please join the site in the upper right hand of the page
- Offer your own thoughts for the benefit of the wine community.
- If you think the discussion is worthwhile, please promote this on your favorite social media platform.
There is a book by Hirschner called Exit, Voice and Loyalty which examines the three choices people have when confronted with bad times or situations. Having tried Loyalty since 1964, then Voice since 1995, I finally chose Exit. Hirschner states that those that care the most leave first -- I guess too painful. The concept that most locals don't mind tourism doesn't pass the logic test because uncounted are the people who have left, the exit poll. The real estate market is now a buyers market, restaurants are struggling, St. Helena can't find locals to serve on City committees, 40% of the town is 2nd homes. Such indicators must be weighed also.
ReplyDeleteEx-pat. Thanks for the comments. Your perspective is valid. Places evolve and people relocate. I grew up in Concord, CA and it was farmland. Houses were built. People moved for opportunity.
DeleteThe information above is survey data from a reliable 3rd party so there's no detectable bias, and it's repeated in other regions with similar results.
People that exited Napa over the years have done so for a variety of reasons versus being fed up as you imply, and when they did so, they did it with higher home values.
Yes St Helena is a mess. I lived there for almost 20 years and saw first hand how their policies that insisted downtown be "local serving" led to its demise. Instead of embracing change and tourism as Yountville did, they fought change and now are are on the precipice of something catastrophic, and only now have they started to embrace occupancy tax from tourism as a source of their salvation.
No question people have left there, but people have moved in too. People gave exited Napa for a variety of reasons, but more what to come and that's pushing up home values. Napa in its current state is a gem. Tourism is a part of what makes the valley and its towns tick economically.
Thanks for your article. It really puts the entire wine industry in Napa and Sonoma in context. The upsides really outweight the downsides. But as you pointed out, Napa is just about maxed out for more plantings - or is it. I think of places in Europe where hillsides are planted from top to bottom. And there are a lot of hillsides in Napa (and Sonoma) that don't have vines on them yet.
ReplyDeleteKen - Thanks for weighing in.
DeleteImportant to the success of Napa has been the efforts aimed at protecting agriculture from unfettered residential development. Hillsides and oaks are protected through many regulations including a prohibition against planting on slopes greater than 30%.
Hillside development today requires a full EIR which costs in excess of $100,000 and takes 2 years. So while we may see some planting in the hills, we are more likely to see more houses.
In our zeal to protect the hills against the encroachment of vineyards, massive homes have instead been built and now dot the hillsides the length of the valley.
Interesting that the Ag Preserve was put in place to protect against residential development and today the fight is over ag development while residential development continues cluttering the viewshed.
Really interesting look at the past. Very useful to explain the present!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the uncensured point of view of Peter Mondavi Sr. He helped us remember that the so called "blessed past" was not so great after all. We tend to forget it quite often and very ... rapidly.
I think tourism is now experiencing full scale globalization (as most of other human activities). As such, very popular places become somehow saturated and become specialized in one particular type of activity (Wine here).
Anyway, change is hard for most people and the one that opposes changes tend to suffer the more.
I am curious about the "next stage" of this evolution.
As the land become unavailable for wine (taxes, laws, tourism adversed citizens, etc.) how will it evolve from there ?
If I compare to France (Bordeaux or Bourgogne) where such rules are in place for a long time, it somehow increase the price of everything and tend to drive the locals that do not own or participate those activities in other less expensive regions.
Do you think this is what will happens in Napa/Sonoma ?
Benoit - very much appreciate you for offering your thoughts.
DeleteIt's an excellent question. What will Napa look like tomorrow? Relative to Bourdeaux there are similar dynamics. There is only so much land and what we have is what there will be. One exception: The SF Bay Area is a dynamic economy that drives California - which if I'm not mistaken is the #5 economy in the world if taken alone. Its proximity to Napa also influences home prices.
What many miss is the increase in tourism in Napa and Sonoma has as much to do with Bay Area growth and people in electric cities just wanting to get away. It's hard to slow a freight train of growth from leaking into the North Bay.
Sadly for many, the region will develop. The good news is in Napa because of the Ag Preserve and the efforts of Napa Land Trust, Napa will be priced different but even 40 years from now - it's going to look very similar.
So while this
I disagree that 60% would fail if you took away tasting room. they would merely be forced to do different marketing and work with a good distributor. The midsize and smaller distributors are the ones who lost a lot of ground to the tasting room. They might make a comeback if Napa n Sonoma and Santa Barbara were to squeeze down the tourism volumes.
ReplyDeleteMAW - thank you as always for your thoughts. You have been devoted to this blog and I always appreciate your perspective.
DeleteThat said, your wrong! (haha. Couldn't resist. Kidding of course.)
Your logic would work but misses one really important point: Small wineries don't want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on tasting rooms or developing alternative methods of selling their wine. In the 1990's when we were short on premium wine, the small wineries had no problem handing it all over to the distributors.
I always thought with distributor consolidation that there would be small regional distributors picking up the slack but that hasn't happened for several reasons that I'll lay aside for now.
The reality with winery owners is they want to grow grapes and make wine, but they don't want to sell it. Selling direct has been a godsend and is the only thing that has allowed the family owned winery to stay afloat. Without being able to sell direct, there would indeed be a massive withering of the numbers of wineries in the US.
Thanks for being a good sport with my twisted response and sense of humor. I do appreciate your consistently weighing in with a good perspective worthy of discussion.
If I say that you are right, does that mean I am no longer wrong?
DeleteAnd a massive withering would suit some companies just fine. Won't name names but the big ones with lobbying money would love to python the DTC.
MAW - when you are right you are right, especially the second paragraph. But heck - let's just agree you are right and tip a pint! Long day. haha
DeleteVery interesting. My wife and I used to visit northern California wine country pretty regularly in the 1980's. While we did spend a little time in the Napa Valley, we wound up spending more and more time in Sonoma, as it was less crowded, the wineries were more interesting, and the tasting rooms were generally laid back and there was no charge for tasting. We haven't been there in about 25+ years, and I think I'd be shocked at the changes. Meanwhile, we started to visit France yearly, and 2 wine regions we rarely, if ever, visit are Bordeaux and Burgundy. They are probably the only 2 wine regions (with the possible exception of parts of Champagne) that are heavily touristed.
ReplyDeleteBob -
DeleteYour comments are entirely valid. It's part of the conversation that I continue to push forward. You don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
If we just accept unfettered growth without restraint and oversight, we aren't helping anyone. We don't need to approve every winery and just widen roads. We don't have to remove every tree and replace it with vines. We don't need to farm up to the edge of a stream bank. There is a balance that allows for the growth in the industry and the local economy, and still keeps the regions natural beauty intact.
That said, there will always be those who want to return to 'the good old days' and don't care about the health of a business that is about as gentle on the environment as any I can think of. I'm grateful I don't live in a region that makes cement or smelts iron.