[ DISCOVERY · THE DISPATCH ]

Whole Cities Are Slowly Sinking and Nobody Tells You Which to Visit First

Venice gets all the headlines, but it is sinking slower than four cities you have probably never considered. Jakarta is going under fastest of all, and the reasons are stranger than rising seas.

Everyone knows Venice is sinking. It is practically the city’s brand at this point, the gondolas, the acqua alta, the photos of cafe chairs floating in St Mark’s Square. So when I started reading the actual subsidence numbers, I assumed Venice would top the list.

It does not come close. Venice is settling at a couple of millimetres a year. There is a city sinking forty times faster than that, and most travellers have never put it on a list at all. Because here is the part nobody explains: the worst sinking is usually not the sea rising. It is the ground itself dropping, as cities pump out the groundwater beneath their own feet. So let me rank these by urgency, not fame.

Indonesia’s capital is the most extreme case on earth. Parts of North Jakarta have sunk by more than two and a half metres over recent decades, with some districts dropping up to 25 centimetres in a single year. The cause is brutal and human: with unreliable piped water, millions of residents and businesses suck water from underground aquifers, and the emptied ground collapses.

The result is so dire that Indonesia is building an entirely new capital, Nusantara, on the island of Borneo, and planning to relocate the seat of government away from a city that is literally going under. Visit the old port area of Sunda Kelapa and the crumbling Dutch-colonial Kota Tua quarter now, because you are walking through a capital that its own country is preparing to leave behind.

You do not have to fly to Asia for this. Roughly half of New Orleans sits below sea level, and the ground keeps sinking as the soft Mississippi delta soil compacts and the wetlands that once buffered the coast vanish. The whole city survives behind an enormous, anxious system of levees and pumps, a fact Hurricane Katrina made horrifyingly clear in 2005.

This is the most accessible sinking city for most readers, and one of the most alive. Go for the French Quarter and the Marigny, the brass bands and the food, but understand you are partying in a bowl held back by engineering, in a place where the land itself is quietly losing.

Venice still belongs here, just lower than its reputation suggests. It is sinking slowly and tilting slightly to the east, and rising seas do the rest, which is why the floods feel worse each decade. The city’s huge MOSE flood-barrier system now rises to hold back the worst tides, buying time rather than solving anything.

Go, absolutely. But go knowing Venice is the celebrity of a much larger, quieter crisis, and that it is not even the most urgent name on its own list.

The instinct is to treat these as doom tourism, a grim box to tick. Resist that. These are living cities full of people who are not props in a climate story, and the respectful version is to show up, spend money locally, and pay attention.

Go to the working waterfront, not just the postcard square. Talk to people who live behind the seawall. You will leave with something better than a photo of a flood: a real sense of how millions of people build whole lives on ground that is slipping out from under them, and how stubbornly beautiful those cities are while they do it.

Q: Which sinking city should I visit first? A: If you can reach it, Jakarta, because it’s sinking fastest and is the clearest, most dramatic example, and its own government is already planning to move away. If you want something closer and easier, New Orleans gives you a city living below sea level without leaving North America. Venice is worth it too, just don’t assume it’s the most urgent.

This article contains affiliate links marked rel="sponsored". We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.