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

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#91

Post by Swizec »

akamaka wrote: post #83
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…

Maybe urban agriculture doesn’t work in theory, but in practice the Netherlands already has many regions where productive farms mingle with urban areas. For an example, have a look at a satellite view of the Westland region, directly southwest of The Hague.

Where I'm from (Slovenia) it's a 20min walk from downtown of the capital city to farms with cows.

The trick is to not have suburbia. Go straight from urban to rural.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#92

Post by imilk »

calt wrote: post #82
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…

> you'll have to hop on a bicycle But that's exactly what you're missing. Hopping on a Dutch bicycle in a dutch city is like walking, but better. No helmet required. No hassle of dealing with cars trying to kill you. No pain from hunched over road bike posture. Just unlock your bike and go.

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 designed for walking.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#93

Post by mrsuprawsm »

akamaka wrote: post #83
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…

Maybe urban agriculture doesn’t work in theory, but in practice the Netherlands already has many regions where productive farms mingle with urban areas. For an example, have a look at a satellite view of the Westland region, directly southwest of The Hague.

I'd add to your comment by emphasising that Westland is a super intensive agricultural area with tons of dense greenhouses, trying to eke out as much production out of a small area as possible (and doing pretty well at it).

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#94

Post by mrsuprawsm »

jltsiren wrote: post #88
calt wrote: post #80

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…

>You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles.

Your assertion shows that you have never visited a Dutch city.

Most Dutch cities were originally designed for walking (they are old, at least in the core), then (like most places) the car took over in the 30s - 70s, but since the 70s there's been a concerted effort to re-establish bicycle supremacy, along with strong public transport.

The outcome is that pretty much everyone (including the elderly) cycle everywhere because it's most convenient. And walk around perfectly fine once you've parked your bike. And if you need to go a bit further afield when you're done? Jump back on the bike.

The hybrid of public transport/bike/walking works incredibly well, everyone co-exists perfectly, without making any compromises. Obviously, this wouldn't happen without there having had been a concerted effort to build good multi-modal infrastructure nationwide for the last ~50 years, but it really pays off. The urban environment is really nothing like pretty much anywhere else.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#95

Post by jltsiren »

stingraycharles wrote: post #87
jltsiren wrote: post #74

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).

I would just like to say that “bicycle” is considered equivalent to “pedestrian” over here in NL, at least in the context of city planning. This allows for this additional “reach” of distance for many families without using a car or bus (which is important for children and teenagers), and it’s a big difference from e.g. the US way of approaching things. It’s easy to see why it almost takes a completely different way…

I'm originally from Finland. Our urban planning used to combine pedestrians and bicycles into "light traffic". That approach became obsolete 10-15 years ago, when it was widely realized that they are two different modes of transport that operate at different speeds and scales. The change has improved the bicycle infrastructure significantly, as the old approach didn't really see bicycling as a form of traffic that should be taken seriously.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#96

Post by DeusExMachina »

Mo3 wrote: post #72
jltsiren wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#97

Post by BlargMcLarg »

jltsiren wrote: post #88
calt wrote: post #80

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'd be more apt to group them on their own if anything, just as Dutch cities tend to have separate lanes for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. At least for The Netherlands, cyclists often feel like a protected group both pedestrians and drivers have to pay attention to.

The latter is more apparent in old roads and areas where there's no clear distinction between road and sidewalk, where cars are generally not allowed but bicycles are. Watching for cyclists feels like playing Frogger at times. Also cases where cyclists just ignore pedestrians and expect priority, when it is obvious pedestrians have priority (zebra crossings, traffic lights).

The above does illustrate why cities made for walking alone and cities made for walking and cycling would or should differ.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#98

Post by mrsuprawsm »

imilk wrote: post #92
calt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'll have to hop on a bicycle But that's exactly what you're missing. Hopping on a Dutch bicycle in a dutch city is like walking, but better. No helmet required. No hassle of dealing with cars trying to kill you. No pain from hunched over road bike posture. Just unlock your bike and go.

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 options are pretty much as good as each other.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#100

Post by jacquesm »

DonHopkins wrote: post #90
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very neat, thank you for posting that. Almere still does quite a bit of that, for instance, it was the first municipality where they allowed 'tiny houses', though, truth be told what they are selling those for you might as well buy a normal house. https://www.funda.nl/koop/almere/huis-88999896-alseidenstraa...

Are those the lofty peaks of Mt Almere in the background? Or just a huge pile of cow shit?

Definitely mount Almere.

The whole thing looks like a render to me on that picture.

Post reply on HN