A Dutch city testing the future of urban life • Hacker News Board

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#41

Post by kkfx » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:30 PM UTC

Sorry but no. Images shown are not a future of anything, just yet another erotic dream of some archistar. The future means an age of cheapness and scarcity, at least in the short term, witch can only means a Sarajevo-style semi-abandoned cities. An a bit more far future will be like modern China: poor concentrated in open-sky prisons named smart-cities, capsule-hotel style, far more dense that the fictional dutch scenario, and some more wealthy living in small areas of individual homes, villas-alike.

Sparse tall buildings and hallway spaces are not likely at all and have no purpose at all. Floating constructions is a tempted and failed way, too much humidity, cracks and fissures, problems of sewage and networks in general (water intakes, TLCs etc) so again might sound nice on paper but a failure otherwise so very unlikely as well.

To architects: when you design something imaging it's usage BEFORE start drawing. We built for some reasons, beauty is one of them, but secondary, an added thing to something with more practical reasons; anything designed first than adapted to some purpose end up in expensive failures.

To my fellow Citizens: please when you dream your future dream it really: where and how do you really want to live? In a Goshiwong/capsule-hotel room in a dense area with some hallway and common areas in general to loitering aimlessly, maybe with a stupid smile drawn on face for the "happy-o-meter" part of the new social score? Or you dream a low density area where you can work and live in homes, with a bit of nature ALL AROUND, leaving tall buildings to specific purposes like hospitals, schools etc? Perhaps considering that single family homes can evolve, being recycled and rebuilt perhaps at generational change, while no tall building can evolve so even if it's well designed now will be a disaster in 40+ years and no one know what to do then?

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#42

Post by mpol » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:33 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #5

lbriner wrote: post #3

I think it looks really nice but alluded to in the article is the spectre of people who thought they were doing something equally innovative in the 1950s and we now have large brutalist city centres that are much lamented. There are plenty of buildings that look amazing when they are first built (or even worse when they are simply drawn) but give it 5 years, some water staining, a few unruly residents etc.... I don't…

What are some examples of these regretted 1950s brutalist city centers?

Not 1950s, but 1970s; Lelystad. They did not mention this at all in the article, which is quite a miss. Lelystad was the earlier experiment, a bit more up north in Flevoland. It is not growing anymore because some parts have failed and not many people move there anymore. Housing is still quite cheap, even now. Some neighbourhoods are quite good neighbourhoods, some are just awful with many residents living on wellfare, many people into drugs, etcetera. They didn't plan for mixing different cultures and classes in society, they planned for somewhat segregated neighbourhoods, which was a wrong choice. If there is a city in the Netherlands where you can guess income and status from the postal code, Lelystad is the place.

We still have to see what will happen to Almere, Almere Haven is just 30 years old. Not all parts there are good :) It is often 30 or 40 years, that a neighbourhood can go from good to bad, at least that is usual in the Netherlands.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#43

Post by martincmartin » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

It's not cutting the climate-change impact of food. It's cutting the climate-change impact of food miles. As you say, overall it's making things worse, e.g. increasing the climate-change impact of every other delivery but food.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#44

Post by imilk » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:33 PM UTC

Mo3 wrote: post #39

imilk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course there's going to be some level of separation between residential areas and other areas - but contrary to, for example the US, where you have to walk for miles or put your life in danger bicycling between a suburb and the city center - the distances are quite negligible and the space in between is friendly towards anything that is not a car. Public transport intervals are measured in minutes, and unlike in t…

I guess so but I'm seeing 1-2 restaurants/bars in sub-neighborhoods that are about 1.5km wide.

I'm not saying the city is bad by any means, I'm just saying that it falls very short in what I would hope to be the "future of urban life". Maybe the future of smaller towns or exurbs. But there seems to be a lack of necessary dynamic spaces that change in character throughout the day as people flow in and out that you look for in great urban areas.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#45

Post by imilk » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

mpol wrote: post #38

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,…

Almere is very walkable, just a bit boring. Cycling is okay too, although it needs a bit of work I think. In regards to cycling, it is not that popular in Almere. Not sure why, it could be that rudimentary, half of the people is upper middle class that is doing everything by car, the other half was born in another country and could more easily find a house in Almere compared to Amsterdam but they don't share the cycl…

Sure, but it falls a bit short to be in the vision of "future of urban life". There are a sprinkling of commercial businesses in the gray areas of the map outside the city center. But not nearly enough to be considered urban by any means. And most of the areas where people live seem quite far away to be considered "walkable" from the commercial district.

I'm sure it's a nice place to live, but this is not the future of urban life.

https://imgur.com/a/xgbRE15

(I put a 1km marker on the map for reference)

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#46

Post by kkfx » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:40 PM UTC

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 country home with some animals around: it do not need third party fertilizers, the balance between animals manure and cultivated ground means manure suffice, the resulting pollution is very low, water usage sparse enough to be a non-issue in most cases. Surely it can nourish a limited number of humans PER FARM, but it's absolutely sustainable and effective.

Urbs are not, we never ever have a sustainable city, we have just some needs who justify them. But the rest you mention is needed only for mass distribution, not for nourishing humans but for nourishing business, in money, not in food, and we have enough proof that that's totally unsustainable. Surely we are too much for such classic approach, but we can handle that with a SLOW de-growth pushing toward de-urbanization as much as we can leaving just enough for certain kind of manufacturing and other specific needs.

The sparse small-scale industry is actually ECONOMICALLY inefficient but far more sustainable, self-sufficient on scale, at the human size. It's like a small countryside restaurant, it's economically far less efficient than a modern fast food, but suffice for their owner and satisfy their customers, only managers and the companies behind them are unhappy.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#47

Post by Mo3 » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

imilk wrote: post #44

Mo3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there's going to be some level of separation between residential areas and other areas - but contrary to, for example the US, where you have to walk for miles or put your life in danger bicycling between a suburb and the city center - the distances are quite negligible and the space in between is friendly towards anything that is not a car. Public transport intervals are measured in minutes, and unlike in t…

I guess so but I'm seeing 1-2 restaurants/bars in sub-neighborhoods that are about 1.5km wide. I'm not saying the city is bad by any means, I'm just saying that it falls very short in what I would hope to be the "future of urban life". Maybe the future of smaller towns or exurbs. But there seems to be a lack of necessary dynamic spaces that change in character throughout the day as people flow in and out that you loo…

I mean, it is an experiment. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry the BBC is dependent on clickbait titles, but Almere is really nothing too special as I have also mentioned in my original post referring to another users great post here. Some of these concepts have been in place in other cities around the Netherlands for a while, and (imo) work better there.

There is not much life going on in Almere, which might explain the lack of density of restaurants or whatever you see.

It's really just that Almere is artificial land reclaimed from the sea, so they have quite a lot of space there to experiment with their weird metal houses and green roofs. Almere is a little less dense than other cities nearby.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#48

Post by nostrebored » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

martincmartin wrote: post #43

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…

It's not cutting the climate-change impact of food. It's cutting the climate-change impact of food miles. As you say, overall it's making things worse, e.g. increasing the climate-change impact of every other delivery but food.

But this is fundamentally flaws analysis. Lack of economies of scale mean you have to analyze the production of food bottoms-up. What's the cost of getting the resources needed to each of these individual farms and to support the life of people there?

The thing people don't realize is that industrial farming is actually extremely carbon-emission efficient. Even your food coming from a container ship from halfway around the world, transported via freight, and driven last mile in a semi is less carbon intensive than getting a delivery from a local (XX miles away) farm.

This seems to be trivially true as well for an entire city of inefficient farms with any expectation of modern amenities.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#49

Post by beembeem » Mon, May 09, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #48

martincmartin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not cutting the climate-change impact of food. It's cutting the climate-change impact of food miles. As you say, overall it's making things worse, e.g. increasing the climate-change impact of every other delivery but food.

But this is fundamentally flaws analysis. Lack of economies of scale mean you have to analyze the production of food bottoms-up. What's the cost of getting the resources needed to each of these individual farms and to support the life of people there? The thing people don't realize is that industrial farming is actually extremely carbon-emission efficient. Even your food coming from a container ship from halfway arou…

Composting and rain water harvesting give you much of what you need. Not much is needed from far away.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#50

Post by brailsafe » Mon, May 09, 2022, 7:02 PM UTC

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…

As someone who's lived in cities inspired by Garden City, this looks very British (by their own admission) and extremely suburban. So I gotta agree with the parent's observation. The only difference being small streets which inherently slow traffic, and probably better bike and public transit infrastructure, but everywhere has good public transit if it's tiny now. The garden city movement was a giant compromise between city and rural life, almost by definition. This is one of the most suburban places I've ever seen, it just might be marginally more Dutch of one. There's literally a Dunkin' donuts, Starbucks, and Chanel store all within what looks like a place you drive or bike to to then walk around for a bit and leave, which to me is reminiscent of some places on the outskirts of L.A.

Seems like it would probably be better to just ride your bike to Amsterdam if what you want. On the other hand, that's just my observation. What did you get out of living there? Was it the quiet, or the parks? Did you meet people easily?