What If Tbilisi Implemented Different Tourism Approaches?

The Actual History

Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, underwent a dramatic transformation in its approach to tourism following the 2003 Rose Revolution. After decades of Soviet rule and the subsequent turbulent 1990s marked by civil war and economic collapse, Georgia emerged in the early 2000s with ambitious plans to reinvent itself on the global stage. Under President Mikheil Saakashvili (2004-2013), the country implemented radical reforms across multiple sectors, with tourism development becoming a cornerstone of economic policy.

The government's approach to tourism in Tbilisi followed several key strategies. First came infrastructure modernization, with significant investments in roads, airports, and public transport. The Tbilisi International Airport underwent extensive renovations, dramatically increasing capacity. Second, the government pursued aggressive liberalization policies, including a visa-free regime for citizens of 94 countries by 2013. This open-door policy aimed to remove barriers to entry for potential visitors.

Architectural transformation became another hallmark of Tbilisi's tourism development strategy. The city embarked on bold modernization projects that sometimes came at the expense of historical preservation. Controversial glass-and-steel structures like the Bridge of Peace (2010) and the Public Service Hall (2012) were erected as symbols of a forward-looking Georgia. While these projects created distinctive landmarks, they sparked debates about authenticity and the preservation of Tbilisi's historical character.

Marketing efforts focused predominantly on positioning Georgia as a European destination despite its geographic location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. The slogan "Europe Started Here" appeared in international campaigns, emphasizing Georgia's ancient Christian heritage and wine culture as evidence of its European credentials.

From 2009 to 2019, Georgia experienced a tourism boom with annual visitor numbers growing from approximately 1.5 million to 9.4 million—an extraordinary figure for a country with a population of just 3.7 million. Tbilisi, as the main gateway to Georgia, absorbed much of this influx. By 2019, tourism contributed approximately 11.6% to Georgia's GDP, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council.

However, this rapid growth came with significant challenges. Tourism development concentrated heavily in Tbilisi's Old Town, leading to gentrification, displacement of local residents, and a proliferation of businesses catering exclusively to tourists. Many historic buildings were converted into hotels, restaurants, and souvenir shops, while others deteriorated due to unclear ownership or insufficient preservation funds. The price of real estate in central neighborhoods skyrocketed, pushing out long-term residents.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exposed the vulnerability of Georgia's tourism-dependent economy. International arrivals plummeted by more than 80%, revealing the risks of over-reliance on this sector. As tourism rebounded in 2021-2023, debates intensified about the sustainability of Tbilisi's tourism model, with growing calls for more balanced approaches that could better preserve the city's unique character while distributing economic benefits more equitably across the population.

By 2025, Tbilisi faces critical questions about its tourism future. While visitor numbers have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, unresolved tensions remain between modernization and preservation, between catering to international tourists and meeting local needs, and between concentrated development in the historic center and the neglect of peripheral districts.

The Point of Divergence

What if Tbilisi had implemented fundamentally different tourism development strategies following the Rose Revolution? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Georgian policymakers, instead of pursuing rapid mass tourism growth through modernization and liberalization, opted for a more measured, preservation-focused approach that prioritized cultural authenticity and community involvement.

Several plausible mechanisms could have led to this divergence. One possibility involves different international influences shaping Georgia's post-Revolution policies. Rather than primarily looking to Western models of development and seeking rapid integration with Europe, Georgian leaders might have been more influenced by sustainable tourism approaches from countries like Bhutan or certain European regions that had successfully limited tourism's negative impacts while maximizing its benefits.

Alternatively, the divergence might have stemmed from domestic political dynamics. Perhaps civic society organizations and preservation advocates gained more influence in the immediate post-Revolution period, successfully arguing that Georgia's unique selling point on the global stage was precisely its unspoiled authenticity and distinctive cultural heritage. In this scenario, President Saakashvili's administration might have recognized that Georgia could differentiate itself not by emulating Western cities but by offering something genuinely unique.

A third possibility centers on early experiences with mass tourism development. If one of the first major tourism projects in post-Revolution Tbilisi had resulted in a widely-perceived failure—perhaps a controversial modern building project generating significant backlash, or early cases of overtourism causing visible damage to historic sites—this could have prompted a strategic reassessment and course correction before the mass tourism approach became entrenched.

In this alternate timeline, the divergence crystallizes around 2005-2006, when instead of approving projects like the futuristic Bridge of Peace and emphasizing quantity of visitors above all else, Georgian authorities establish a comprehensive Tourism Master Plan that emphasizes quality over quantity, heritage preservation, community involvement, and dispersed development beyond just the Old Town.

Immediate Aftermath

Architectural and Urban Planning Approaches

In the immediate aftermath of this policy divergence, the most visible changes manifested in Tbilisi's architectural landscape. Rather than commissioning international architects to design ultramodern structures, city authorities focused on sensitive restoration of historic buildings. The 2007-2010 period saw the implementation of strict architectural guidelines for the Old Town, requiring new constructions and renovations to maintain harmony with existing historical styles while allowing for contemporary functionality.

The Bridge of Peace—which in our timeline became a controversial glass-and-steel structure designed by Italian architect Michele De Lucchi—instead emerged as a more contextually sensitive design incorporating traditional Georgian motifs and materials. Local architects played leading roles in these projects, often in collaboration with international experts in historical preservation rather than starchitects seeking to make bold statements.

The city government established a "Heritage First" fund that provided subsidies and tax incentives for property owners to restore historic buildings according to traditional methods rather than converting them into generic tourist accommodations. This approach slowed down development but resulted in more authentic restorations of Tbilisi's distinctive wooden balconies, brick bathhouses, and Art Nouveau buildings.

Tourism Governance and Regulation

By 2008, Georgia implemented a different regulatory framework for tourism that emphasized sustainable growth. Unlike the actual timeline's focus on maximizing visitor numbers through visa liberalization, the alternate approach introduced a more controlled entry system. While not as restrictive as Bhutan's high-value tourism model, it nevertheless incorporated elements of visitor management:

A modest "Cultural Heritage Preservation Fee" was integrated into airline tickets and accommodation costs, with proceeds directly funding conservation efforts
Digital permits were required for visiting certain fragile heritage sites, with daily visitor caps to prevent overcrowding
Tourism businesses needed to meet specific environmental and cultural sensitivity standards to receive operating licenses

The Georgian National Tourism Administration, established in 2008, pursued quality over quantity in its marketing strategies. Rather than targeting mass tourism markets, campaigns focused on attracting cultural tourists, adventure travelers, and special interest visitors who typically stay longer and spend more while having less negative impact on local communities.

Economic Implications

The immediate economic consequences of this alternate approach were mixed. By 2010, Georgia attracted fewer total visitors than in our timeline—approximately 1.8 million compared to 2.2 million actually recorded. However, the average length of stay increased by 35%, and per-visitor spending rose by nearly 40%. Tourism revenue therefore remained comparable while generating less strain on infrastructure and cultural sites.

Tourism development spread more evenly across Tbilisi rather than concentrating in the Old Town. The Abanotubani (historic bathhouse district) still emerged as a tourist hub, but programs encouraging the opening of guest houses and small businesses in residential neighborhoods like Sololaki, Chugureti, and Avlabari created a more dispersed pattern of tourist activity and economic benefit.

Local ownership characterized this alternate tourism economy. Rather than allowing large international hotel chains to dominate prime locations, regulations favored small and medium-sized locally owned businesses. By 2010, nearly 75% of tourism businesses in Tbilisi were Georgian-owned, compared to approximately 55% in our timeline.

Social and Cultural Effects

The social fabric of historic neighborhoods experienced less disruption than in our timeline. Lower-income residents who owned property benefited from programs that helped them renovate rooms to accommodate tourists while continuing to live in their homes. This "live-in" approach preserved neighborhood authenticity while providing direct economic benefits to local residents.

Cultural programming evolved differently as well. Rather than catering predominantly to foreign tastes, Tbilisi developed tourism experiences that showcased genuine Georgian traditions. The "Living Culture" initiative launched in 2009 supported traditional artisans, musicians, and chefs to maintain their practices and share them with visitors through workshops and demonstrations, creating meaningful cultural exchanges rather than superficial performances.

By 2010-2011, surveys showed significantly higher satisfaction rates among both tourists and local residents compared to our timeline. Visitors reported more authentic experiences, while residents expressed greater pride in tourism development that respected their cultural heritage and included them as participants rather than just service providers.

Long-term Impact

Economic Resilience and Diversification

By the mid-2010s, the alternate Tbilisi's tourism model demonstrated remarkable economic resilience. While growing more slowly than in our timeline, the tourism sector developed deep connections with other parts of the economy, particularly traditional crafts, agriculture, and creative industries. This integration created multiple value chains that kept tourism revenues circulating within the Georgian economy instead of leaking to international corporations.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, this alternate Tbilisi proved far more economically resilient. With a more diverse economic base and less over-reliance on international visitors, the city's unemployment rates increased by only 8% compared to the 22% spike in our timeline. The domestic tourism market, which had been cultivated alongside international tourism rather than neglected, provided a crucial safety net for many businesses.

By 2025, tourism contributes approximately 9% to Georgia's GDP in this alternate timeline—lower than the 11-12% in our actual timeline, but representing a more sustainable and stable income source. Economic analysis shows that despite the lower overall GDP contribution, the wider distribution of benefits across society actually resulted in improved living standards for a broader segment of Tbilisi's population.

Urban Development Patterns

The long-term urban development of Tbilisi followed a strikingly different trajectory in this alternate timeline. Rather than concentrating investment in a few showcase areas, the city pursued an "every neighborhood matters" policy that directed tourism-related infrastructure improvements throughout the city.

The historic center maintained its authentic character, with far fewer souvenir shops and generic cafes than in our timeline. Many buildings that in our reality were converted entirely to commercial use instead retained residential components, preserving the mixed-use character that had defined Tbilisi for centuries. The housing affordability crisis that plagued our timeline's Tbilisi was significantly mitigated, with housing costs in the Old Town increasing by only 35% between 2010 and 2025, compared to the 120% increase in our timeline.

By 2025, Tbilisi's skyline looks markedly different. The proliferation of international-style high-rise hotels and apartment buildings that transformed our timeline's city never materialized. Instead, new developments followed design guidelines that referenced traditional Georgian architectural elements while incorporating modern sustainability features. The city's distinctive topography of hills and gorges remains more visible, with building heights limited in key viewsheds.

Transportation infrastructure developed to serve both tourists and locals equally. Rather than focusing on tourist-centric projects like airport expansions and five-star hotel access routes, investments prioritized improvements to the public transportation network, pedestrianization of historic streets, and restoration of Tbilisi's funicular and cable car systems as both practical transport and heritage attractions.

Cultural Preservation and Evolution

The most profound long-term impacts manifested in Tbilisi's cultural landscape. By 2025, the city maintained a living connection to its historical traditions while allowing them to evolve organically. Traditional crafts such as cloisonné enamel, felt-making, and ceramics not only survived but flourished, with master-apprentice programs ensuring knowledge transfer to younger generations.

Tbilisi's traditional bathhouse culture, which had declined significantly in our timeline, experienced a renaissance in this alternate version. The historic sulfur baths were carefully restored with traditional techniques and operated as authentic bathhouses rather than primarily as tourist attractions. While visitors were welcomed, pricing structures and reserved times ensured locals maintained access to this important cultural institution.

The city's famous cuisine followed a different evolutionary path as well. Rather than the proliferation of tourist-oriented restaurants serving standardized versions of Georgian dishes, this alternate Tbilisi maintained diverse regional cooking traditions. Culinary tourism developed around authentic home cooking, small family restaurants, and specialized wine cellars highlighting Georgia's 8,000-year winemaking tradition.

Languages and intangible heritage received particular attention. In this timeline, tourism development incorporated incentives for maintaining Georgia's unique linguistic heritage. Visitors encountered not just English-language signage but also proper Georgian script, with innovative applications providing translation assistance rather than replacing the original language in public spaces.

Geopolitical and Regional Implications

The alternate tourism approach had subtle but significant implications for Georgia's geopolitical positioning. While the actual timeline's Tbilisi emphasized its European aspirations, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging its complex cultural location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, this alternate version embraced its unique position as a meeting point of civilizations.

Tourism marketing highlighted Georgia's connections to both European and Asian cultural spheres, presenting the country as a bridge between worlds rather than simply an eastern outpost of Europe. This nuanced positioning proved diplomatically advantageous, allowing Georgia to maintain warmer relations with both Western powers and regional neighbors like Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

By 2015, this cultural positioning influenced broader foreign policy approaches. Georgia maintained its Euro-Atlantic aspirations but pursued them alongside stronger regional cooperation initiatives. The "Caucasus Cultural Corridor" project, launched in 2016, promoted regional tourism connections between Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, helping to reduce tensions and build economic interdependence despite ongoing political differences.

Russian relations followed a different trajectory as well. While major political conflicts like the 2008 war still occurred, cultural and people-to-people connections remained somewhat stronger in this timeline. Russian appreciation for Georgia's preservation of shared historical heritage provided a thin but persistent thread of connection even during periods of political tension. By 2025, Russian tourism to Georgia recovered more fully than in our timeline, though with a different character—attracting more culturally-minded visitors rather than simply those seeking inexpensive holidays.

Environmental Sustainability

The environmental footprint of Tbilisi's tourism sector in this alternate timeline proved substantially smaller than in our reality. With fewer total visitors but higher per-visitor spending, the strain on natural resources and infrastructure decreased. Carbon emissions from international flights remained lower, while the emphasis on walking tours, public transportation, and locally-sourced food reduced environmental impacts within the city.

By 2025, Tbilisi emerged as a regional leader in sustainable urban tourism. The Mtkvari River, which in our timeline continued to suffer from pollution problems, underwent a successful rehabilitation program that transformed it into a clean waterway supporting recreation for both locals and visitors. Urban gardens and revitalized public parks created green spaces throughout the city, mitigating the urban heat island effect and providing gathering places that served both community and tourism functions.

The city's famous sulfur waters were managed as a precious resource rather than merely a tourist attraction. Sustainable water management systems ensured these natural resources remained available for future generations, with modern monitoring systems preventing overuse or contamination.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Nino Metreveli, Professor of Cultural Heritage Management at Tbilisi State University, offers this perspective: "The tourism development path not taken by Tbilisi represents a fascinating counterfactual. Had Georgia chosen a more preservation-focused approach after the Rose Revolution, we likely would have seen a very different city today—perhaps less internationally prominent in pure visitor numbers, but potentially more successful in maintaining its authentic character while still deriving significant economic benefits. The actual path chosen prioritized rapid growth and modernization, creating impressive statistics but also generating tensions around identity, authenticity, and who truly benefits from tourism development. The question remains whether Tbilisi can now recalibrate its approach to address these challenges while building on its undeniable successes."

James Wilson, Former Regional Director for the World Tourism Organization, provides this assessment: "Tbilisi's actual tourism development represents a typical post-Soviet rapid liberalization approach—opening markets quickly, attracting foreign investment, and prioritizing growth metrics above all else. In our alternate scenario, a more measured approach might have created fewer immediate headlines but potentially more sustainable long-term outcomes. What fascinates me about this counterfactual is that it represents not just two different tourism strategies but two different visions of development itself. The actual path embraced creative destruction and rapid transformation; our alternate timeline suggests a model where change occurs more organically, with greater continuity between past and present. Neither approach is inherently superior, but they reflect fundamentally different values and priorities."

Dr. Tamara Gviniashvili, Urban Anthropologist and Author of "Cities in Transition," concludes: "The tourism development choices made by cities like Tbilisi after major political transitions reveal profound tensions between economic necessity, cultural identity, and governance capacity. In the alternate scenario we've explored, Tbilisi might have avoided some of the overtourism pressures and authenticity challenges it now faces, but would likely have confronted different obstacles—perhaps slower economic growth or difficulties attracting the investment needed for infrastructure improvements. What this counterfactual ultimately illuminates is not that one path was right and another wrong, but that tourism development always involves trade-offs. The critical question is whether these trade-offs are explicitly acknowledged and whether all stakeholders—not just political and economic elites—have a voice in determining which values are prioritized when these inevitable trade-offs occur."