Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 159 posts

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#61

Post by bombcar »

jeffbee wrote: post #21
lordnacho wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birmingham comes to mind. Lots of concrete, big ring roads cutting through everything. It's unfortunate because there's still a few historic buildings from before that era suggesting what might have been.

No love for the roads, but many of those brutalist buildings in Birmingham are considered masterpieces of architecture. That's why they are listed. And I can't think of one from before 1960, either.

Some would say they had to be listed to be prevented from being torn down.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#62

Post by jacquesm »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #34
throwaway6734 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has somewhat similar problem: flood insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government so the market doesn't remotely factor in future flooding risks into housing prices. There have recently been plans to raise prices but since Florida is such an important state to Federal elections there's a massive political hurdle

Imagine every American east coast city flooding at the same time. That's what would happen in the Netherlands if the levies break. At least Florida can be abandoned in a worst case scenario and the US would continue to function.

No, that's not what would happen. There are a great many secondary and tertiary systems in place, a breach in one place would not automatically flood the whole country, though of course if you lived in the area just behind the breach it would be a major problem. NL has lived with water long enough that the risks are reasonably well understood. Of course nature can still surprise you, the intensity increase of especially rain has caused some pretty serious problems in recent memory.

But even though we occasionally have a dike that fails something at the level of 1953 isn't going to happen 'just like that', though you can never entirely rule out the possibility.

Much more money has gone into water management since then, it is our 'Los Alamos', special water management taxes have been used for massive investments into infrastructure including pumps, dikes, flood barriers and all kinds of less visible work. It isn't perfect, but it is really quite good and I would much rather live here than a few hundred kilometers upstream during a heavy rain season. At least we are no longer in denial that water management is something that you postpone until after the flood.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#63

Post by bombcar »

dncornholio wrote: post #14

Almere broke my child imagination of what a city was. I was very young when Almere got build and I was so confused on how people could build a city in one go. I always thought it would take hundreds of years to develop a city. I always thought cities were the product of generations and generations.. and there I was standing in NL's newest city. It's not something worth to visit. It's still too sterile. Nobody visits…

You weren’t wrong as a child - a city has a story and takes time to grow. Attempting to do it all at once gets a suburb or hotel at best - or maybe a Disneyland.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#64

Post by fleddr »

Almere is painful.

The lack of history makes everything so sterile. Everything is hypermodern, clean and new. You won't have that cute old bar, infrastructural imperfection, clash of cultures, hybrid of old and new, it's entirely without soul.

It feels like a VR game. Maybe I just hate modern architecture.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#65

Post by throwaway6734 »

jacquesm wrote: post #62
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine every American east coast city flooding at the same time. That's what would happen in the Netherlands if the levies break. At least Florida can be abandoned in a worst case scenario and the US would continue to function.

No, that's not what would happen. There are a great many secondary and tertiary systems in place, a breach in one place would not automatically flood the whole country, though of course if you lived in the area just behind the breach it would be a major problem. NL has lived with water long enough that the risks are reasonably well understood. Of course nature can still surprise you, the intensity increase of especia…

Does the Netherlands export their knowledge of handling below sea level engineering? With coasts around the world more prone to flooding it seems like it could be a lucrative industry

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#66

Post by Melkman »

Mo3 wrote: post #33
imilk wrote: post #30

It's interesting - but it's hard for me to see this being the future of urban life when most of the city looks entirely suburban (not very walkable), separated from the main commercial area without bars/restaurants/shops in their own sub-neighborhoods. I would expect a key part of future urban life would include one of the most important parts of current urban life; walkability and a harmonious melding of commercial,…

I lived there for a year. I think you forget that everyone owns a bicycle, everyone rides their bicycle everywhere, and almost every single street has a separated bicycle lane. There are more bicycle lanes than in any other country on earth (22,000 miles in a country ten times smaller than California ) [1], there's even bicycle highways and intersections. Public transport is exceptionally good as well. Everything is…

Indeed, Almere is a sleeping city. Many inhabitants moved from Amsterdam to Almere since gentrification has made housing in Amsterdam almost unobtainable for people with a median income. Almere is comfortable enough and you can get by without a car. But the fun still is in Amsterdam only a half an hour train ride away. In the US it would be called a suburb of Amsterdam.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#67

Post by BlargMcLarg »

fleddr wrote: post #64

Almere is painful. The lack of history makes everything so sterile. Everything is hypermodern, clean and new. You won't have that cute old bar, infrastructural imperfection, clash of cultures, hybrid of old and new, it's entirely without soul. It feels like a VR game. Maybe I just hate modern architecture.

Can't invoke history where there is none. Can't create history when most of the city is running off to other places for those "rustic, authentic" experiences. Can't build with a bit of chaos when prices have to be kept low, density high and requirements must be met which naturally prefers prefabs and cheap, stale-looking materials.

The criticisms are valid, but people haven't exactly given Almere a chance to be anything other than hypermodern, either.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#68

Post by ethanbond »

jltsiren wrote: post #56
Mo3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived there for a year. I think you forget that everyone owns a bicycle, everyone rides their bicycle everywhere, and almost every single street has a separated bicycle lane. There are more bicycle lanes than in any other country on earth (22,000 miles in a country ten times smaller than California ) [1], there's even bicycle highways and intersections. Public transport is exceptionally good as well. Everything is…

Urban areas are not just walkable but walk-centric. They are built under the assumption that most people don't move faster than 4-5 km/h. Places that want to attract people must be close to each other in local centers, or people don't go to them. Bicycles are more suburban than urban. Because they allow people to move flexibly at a relatively high speed, they encourage suburban structure, where things are spread out…

Uhh… this seems like an excessively pedantic distinction. What’s the source of truth you’re pulling from here?

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#69

Post by prmoustache »

imilk wrote: post #37
Mo3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived there for a year. I think you forget that everyone owns a bicycle, everyone rides their bicycle everywhere, and almost every single street has a separated bicycle lane. There are more bicycle lanes than in any other country on earth (22,000 miles in a country ten times smaller than California ) [1], there's even bicycle highways and intersections. Public transport is exceptionally good as well. Everything is…

I've never been there and was just making a quick assessment by Google Maps. It is nice that you can bike anywhere, but I'm mostly seeing residential neighborhoods (~10 blocks wide of identical row homes) pretty spaced out around a town center without amenities in their area. So in terms of meeting someone for a coffee/meal/beer/event it looks like you'll have to hop on a bicycle unless you want to go on a 20-30 minu…

I work for a company who's headquarters are there. It has great infras (railway, bicycle lanes), everything is modern but...it is pretty boring, lacking character.

You can't create and buy a thousand years of history.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#70

Post by sandworm101 »

kkfx wrote: post #46
sandworm101 wrote: post #36

>> Around 60% of Oosterwold is set aside to support "urban agriculture", cutting the climate-change impact of food miles I don't see how this helps. An urban farm is not nearly as efficient as a true industrial farm. They don't have the economies of scale. They are limited as to chemical use (both pesticides and fertilizer) and have to deal with noise complaints. Urban farms are also, nearly universally, fed by potab…

I'm curious about your measuring/reasoning: so far the most efficient cultivation I know is the classic elderly vegetable garden. It can produce FAR more than large mono-cultures fields per hectare with far less resources. For farming, surely we need space, poultry and rabbits are the least needing animals but still demand space to produce their own food, however again there is NOTHING more efficient than a classic c…

Space-efficient, energy-efficient, and labor-efficient are three different things. A tiny "elderly" farm might create lots of food per square-foot, but only through increased labor. Too much labor and the farm simply cannot produce enough to feed the workers working it.
Post reply on HN