101–110 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh… this seems like an excessively pedantic distinction. What’s the source of truth you’re pulling from here?
People may have different definitions for "urban" and "suburban". Regardless of the words used, there is a huge difference between a city designed for walking and a city designed for people using vehicles (cars, public transport, bicycles).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walking in a urban area well designed for it also requires no helmet, no hassle of dealing with cars trying to kill you, and no pain from hunched over road bike posture. You also can stop and chat or pop into businesses easier and don't have to park or lock up your bike anywhere. I love biking, but it's a bit shortsighted to think that bicycling in urban areas can replicate the same benefits of a city that is well de…
>I love biking, but it's a bit shortsighted to think that bicycling in urban areas can replicate the same benefits of a city that is well designed for walking. That's exactly the point, in the Netherlands it can and does. Sometimes you walk, sometimes you cycle, it just depends on the context of your specific trip. (Are you going one place or many? Is the weather a bit cold today? Will it rain a lot later?). Both opt…
Almere looks to be a commuter suburb to Amsterdam, where no culture, events, or urban life of any significance takes place. The fact that it is bikable is nice, but there are plenty of suburbs with well designed bike infrastructure. And that in no way does bikability supplant a well design urban area with residential, commercial, park, & event spaces combined together to create a dynamic living environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I love biking, but it's a bit shortsighted to think that bicycling in urban areas can replicate the same benefits of a city that is well designed for walking. That's exactly the point, in the Netherlands it can and does. Sometimes you walk, sometimes you cycle, it just depends on the context of your specific trip. (Are you going one place or many? Is the weather a bit cold today? Will it rain a lot later?). Both opt…
Well my original larger point is that the city we're all discussing here is not walkable at all. And you can't make up for that by saying, "Well I know it's a 1.5km walk through identical rowhomes to the nearest pub, but the fact that you can bike there instead makes it the future of urban living." Almere looks to be a commuter suburb to Amsterdam, where no culture, events, or urban life of any significance takes pla…
But even average Dutch cities are much more walkable and bikeable than basically anywhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People may have different definitions for "urban" and "suburban". Regardless of the words used, there is a huge difference between a city designed for walking and a city designed for people using vehicles (cars, public transport, bicycles).
So Manhatten, designed for walking, driving and tubing, should also be considered suburban?
But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just move bicycles from being grouped with cars to being grouped with walking, and you're correct. Dutch cities are designed for walking and bicycles. It helps that the bicycles are also designed for dutch cities. Upright, comfortable, a bit heavy and slow, and can be locked up for short times without needing to be locked to anything.
You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles. You can only make compromises between them. The slow Dutch bicycles are still 2.5x to 3x faster than the average pedestrian, which makes them convenient for distances most people would not consider walkable. If most people are comfortable with using bicycles over such distances, it encourages a more spread out urban structure. People often use bicycles in cities…
It seems more appropriate to me to say: You can't optimise a city for both walking and bicycles. You can certainly design it for both (and even public transport and cars), with the necessary trade-offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have clearly never been to any Dutch city. Bicycles are priority #1 even in the most crammed and tight spaces, and thus the distinction between "urban" and "suburban" becomes completely mangled. There's simply places with less space (Amsterdam) and places with a little more space (Almere). Does that make Almere a suburb? Possibly depending on your perspective, but there is nil relation to bicycles. Now, of course…
I live in Amsterdam and I think he has a point. Many major Dutch cities are old, so they don't really work as a counterexample. Looking at new developments, like Almere or even the outskirts of Amsterdam, it's clear that they don't have the same structure.
He was talking about a relationship between bicycles and urban/suburban areas. He’s suggesting that bicycles are a suburban phenomenon and that urban areas are focused on walking.
I don’t know about you but that seems untrue to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well my original larger point is that the city we're all discussing here is not walkable at all. And you can't make up for that by saying, "Well I know it's a 1.5km walk through identical rowhomes to the nearest pub, but the fact that you can bike there instead makes it the future of urban living." Almere looks to be a commuter suburb to Amsterdam, where no culture, events, or urban life of any significance takes pla…
I don't think anyone in this thread (at least anyone with experience of NL) is really in agreement with the parent article's point that Almere is particularly good. It's just an average-ish Dutch city. But even average Dutch cities are much more walkable and bikeable than basically anywhere else.
Ugh, those red buildings. There are wonderfully colored houses/buildings in many of the picturesque neighborhoods you see in certain towns. It seems like they tried to do the same with those. In my opinion, it doesn't work. There's no color variation, no trim/contrast to make the colors pop and look good. It just looks like an ugly red building that would hurt my eyes to see that much red every day (imagine being in…
If it makes you feel better: the colors in that image are oversaturated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Manhatten, designed for walking, driving and tubing, should also be considered suburban?
I think you're meandering a bit from the topic. Manhattan is not similar at all to Almere. Manhattan is filled with multi-use zoning and multiple modes of transportation options on every block, while still being highly walkable. It's also not a great biking city. But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".
Almere is not the future of living. A over-the-top clickbait title does not negate valid statements either.