[HN Gopher] A Dutch city testing the future of urban life
___________________________________________________________________
A Dutch city testing the future of urban life
Author : lelf
Score : 123 points
Date : 2022-05-09 14:43 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| theYipster wrote:
| Ah, Almere... The Irvine, CA of The Netherlands! :)
|
| (NB: I have a good friend in Almere and I live in Irvine.)
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> 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
| potable water sources which can never scale to appreciable food
| production (acre-feet rather than liters). If we actually want to
| produce food near consumers, urban farms are not the way. It only
| works using enclosed buildings, ugly industrial greenhouses, not
| pretty little fields between condos.
| kkfx wrote:
| 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.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 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.
| eherot wrote:
| Additionally, if this urban farm plot exists to the
| exclusion of several stories of apartments, and those
| apartments must instead be located further away from where
| people want to be, the net carbon emissions (not to mention
| the effect on housing prices) are definitely higher than
| that of a regular rural industrial farm.
| bryans wrote:
| The USDA has a very different definition for "urban
| agriculture" than your claim of simply "fields between condos."
|
| "Urban agriculture includes the cultivation, processing and
| distribution of agricultural products in urban and suburban
| areas. Community gardens, rooftop farms, hydroponic, aeroponic,
| and aquaponic facilities, and vertical production are all
| examples of urban agriculture."
|
| https://www.usda.gov/topics/urban
| uoaei wrote:
| Where has processing and transportation been included in your
| informal analysis? You seem to be quite confident but have not
| addressed these factors.
| akamaka wrote:
| 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.
| Swizec wrote:
| 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.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| 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).
| martincmartin wrote:
| 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.
| nostrebored wrote:
| 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.
| eecc wrote:
| Uh, what? Please substantiate, I don't buy such statements
| at face value
| beembeem wrote:
| Composting and rain water harvesting give you much of what
| you need. Not much is needed from far away.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Guy is shillings for mono cultures in an article about
| urban farming. Makes me think what their motives are.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Food-miles sound good, but the reality of modern shipping is
| that it takes far less energy to move food than grow it. The
| carbon/energy cost of bringing a plant product from a hot
| country to a cold country is far less than the energy needed
| to grow that product in a cold country. That's why nobody
| grows bananas in new york. We could, but the cost/energy to
| do so is hugely more than the energy to ship bananas from
| place where they grow easily.
|
| If we want to address global climate change, then we need to
| look into minimizing total energy put into things like food.
| Often that will mean growing things where they can grow most
| easily, with the least amount of energy. A banana brought
| thousands of miles by very efficient transport is more
| sustainable than grown in an ill-suited climate through the
| application of energy-expensive heat/light etc. Distance is
| not everything.
| uoaei wrote:
| In-built into this comment is the implicit entitlement of
| the globalist consumer: that we should have access to
| anything we want at any time of year. But that doesn't
| really need to be the case. Reducing food-miles by feeding
| people locally-first would drop food-miles drastically,
| possibly more than other proposals thus far.
|
| Minimizing total energy is indeed the name of the game. To
| do that, we have to recognize that we may have over-
| extended a little bit as a civilization, and to pull back
| on some of the more hubristic enterprises like bananas in
| Maine or avocados in Sweden during winter in the Northern
| hemisphere. We can still have those things, but at a
| minimum the costs for the consumer should reflect the costs
| of transportation, including costs normally externalized
| (excluded) from supply chain analyses.
| belligeront wrote:
| It's people that have the highest impact milage. We can pack
| food tightly into a truck and they don't mind waiting when
| the packing takes some time.
|
| We can't easily pack humans more densely into trucks, so
| reducing their miles traveled has a much bigger effect (and
| if the distances are shorter they can also walk/bike/bus
| instead of single occupancy vehicle).
| stouset wrote:
| Regardless, the relative price of food is usually a
| reasonable proxy for the amount of energy that went into
| its production. If the food from the urban farm is more
| expensive than equivalent food from an industrial farm, it
| probably took more energy to produce (and consequently
| probably released more greenhouse gases during its
| production).
| beaconstudios wrote:
| > We can't easily pack humans more densely into trucks
|
| We basically can, with decent urban transit and rail
| services.
| patall wrote:
| I do not think anybody is thinking of corn fields here. But
| replacing spruce, plaintaint and ornamental chestnut with
| cherry trees, walnuts and edible chestnut. Instead of having
| fireball, rhododendron or snowball hedges planting black
| berries, currants and maybe elderberries. And finally giving
| families a small allotment garden where they can grow some
| vegetable. Besides that, it's easily possible (as in: I have
| done that) to harvest enough chili & pepper from June to
| December to supply one person via one 1m wide office window.
| Cities will never be food independent but can definitely reduce
| their food import by 15-20 %
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Unfortunately it is now uncertain whether any of this matters 100
| years from now. It is expected that sea levels will rise by more
| than 2 meters, and that dykes will no longer work beyond an extra
| 2 meter extension, not because they can't be extended but because
| Dutch soil is too soft and seawater will just go under the dyke.
| Almere will probably be amongst the first to go. It seems nobody
| has proposed a solution, but in the mean time life goes on as if
| it won't happen. You don't see this being factored into plans or
| housing prices.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| 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
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| 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.
| mellavora wrote:
| Florida doesn't really have many evacuation routes. In a
| worst case scenario it isn't just the land which gets
| abandoned.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| 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
| vladms wrote:
| They definitely export their knowledge of working with
| sand and water:
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/11/18/dutch-firm-
| agrees-...
|
| And same company has other similar/related projects like:
| https://www.vanoord.com/en/updates/van-oord-awarded-land-
| rec...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. Kansai airport and the recovery of New
| Orleans were to some extent (from an engineering point of
| view) a Dutch effort.
|
| For instance:
|
| https://nltimes.nl/2017/08/30/new-orleans-turns-
| netherlands-...
|
| One interesting bit about the Kansai Airport work was
| that the Dutch advised the Japanese to leave the
| reclaimed land untouched for a while (20 years or so) so
| it could settle, the Japanese ignored the advice because
| they had run the numbers and realized dealing with the
| damage from the settling was more profitable.
|
| We're cheap, it's a local joke that copper wire was
| invented by two Dutch traders fighting over a single
| coin, I think the idea of wasting good materials on
| unstable ground just didn't sit right with the Dutch
| engineers but the Japanese had no problem with it at all.
| I wonder how the Japanese look at this today from a
| financial perspective.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-to-
| sav...
|
| Edit: I originally wrote Narita, instead of Kansai.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This isn't as big a problem as some make it out to be. The
| dikes have _always_ been a porous solution, not perfect,
| 'kwel' (water that seeps under the dike) has been there as long
| as there are dikes. But concentric circles of staged dikes are
| one way in which you could deal with this. It will require
| massive geo engineering but nothing on a scale that the Dutch
| have not done before.
|
| There are some voices that NL will have to abandon terrain, I
| think we'll see the exact opposite: more terrain will be
| created with the express goal of being used as basins for
| increased control over water. The important bit when you
| construct dikes is the delta between the water table on one
| side of the dike and on the other and we already have areas
| where there are three such dikes in a row to be able to deal
| with fairly extreme differences in water levels.
|
| If you drive or cycle in the North of the country every now and
| then you'll find yourself crossing through a dike with a
| concrete lintel built into the dike body, this is where in the
| case of high water the dike can very rapidly be closed again
| and turned into a functioning part of the water defenses.
|
| Those dikes are called 'sleeping' dikes they are still there
| and ready to be activated but normally they are transparent to
| traffic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_dike
|
| https://www.climatechangepost.com/netherlands/coastal-floods...
|
| Other evidence that this can be done is that there are some
| massive artificial lakes constructed all over the world with
| dams that have a 'head' that is much higher than anything that
| NL will ever have to deal with.
|
| A bigger problem than keeping the sea out will be to deal with
| the rain water coming into the Netherlands by way of the very
| large rivers. These carry massive flow (from a total area much,
| much larger than that of the country itself) during some times
| of the year and to accommodate that flow and ensure that the
| land behind the river dikes doesn't flood is - in my opinion -
| a much bigger problem when the sea level rises. During some
| storms you see a reversal in the flow of the rivers in the
| delta. Several interesting constructs are located near
| Rotterdam and Zeeland, transparent to shipping but it can be
| closed quickly if such reverse flow threatens the land:
|
| https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/waterbeheer/bescherming...
|
| (Dutch)
|
| Those 'pie slices' are as large as the Eiffel tower but mobile,
| and are some of the most impressive engineering works that I've
| seen in my life.
| whazor wrote:
| Countries with mountains are much more vulnerable against
| climate change and the extreme weather. Last extreme rain
| took away, via the rivers, many houses in Germany. Whereas
| The Netherlands is relatively safe as we are more downstream
| and also more prepared against river floods.
| jacquesm wrote:
| To some extent. There are some relatively narrow passages
| that have to carry extreme amounts of water, mostly in the
| south of the country where the river banks are steep. As
| soon as the river breaks out of that limited area it will
| flood the surrounding countryside which isn't all that well
| prepared.
|
| You could see this during the flooding that destroyed those
| houses in Germany, it didn't go much better in NL, but
| fortunately on a smaller scale.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/embed/96IGKw2NKQY?feature=oembed
|
| Still, you are right that 'upstream' this problem can get
| much worse due to terrain geometry and lack of preparation,
| as well as building into areas that really belong to the
| river.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Not sure what the downvotes are for. I live here and I worry
| about what happens if I buy a new house (which is ridiculously
| expensive nowadays -- like 3x-4x more expensive than just 5
| years ago) -- will I be able to sell it in 30 years when people
| start worrying about 30% of the country flooding in another 30
| years? It's not some nutjob idea that only I have, the
| newspapers have written about how the market currently
| completely ignores the issue:
| https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-natuur/wanneer-zullen-klim...
| In my pension plans I already planned for the worse by assuming
| that my house will be devalued by 50% rather than having risen
| in value.
|
| jacquesm seems to believe that we have a solution. That's not
| the sentiment being brought forward by the newspapers. Even
| reputable newspapers are like " _this_ time we 're really
| screwed, we can't win this one". I'm not a water management
| expert so I don't know any better than what I hear, but I've
| yet to hear from someone authoritative that it's going to be
| okay -- the authorities just seem to be quiet on this issue.
| That really doesn't help me with my long-term plans.
| jacquesm wrote:
| To give a Dutch perspective: Lots of Dutch people would not be
| found dead in Almere (founded in '76), for a long time it was
| basically a satellite city of Amsterdam where people went to
| sleep. Then in the mid 90's it started to change: companies
| realized that the daily traffic jam to Amsterdam in the morning
| and to Almere in the evening was a major obstacle, so why not
| relocate the company to Almere? And this caused the first wave of
| businesses to settle there in what was for the time ridiculously
| cheap real estate. This then led to some commuting the other way
| because some of the employees lived in Amsterdam and then ended
| up working in Almere. But that has always been a small fraction
| of the traffic in the other direction. Even today Almere houses
| and commercial space are a very small fraction of what those go
| for just the other side of the bridges of A27 and A6, which is
| prime real estate (Laren, Blaricum, Hilversum, Amsterdam and some
| cheaper areas as well but not much cheaper).
|
| Almere obviously doesn't have a whole lot of history compared to
| other Dutch towns, it is quite literally built on 'new land',
| areas that were turned from water into land in living memory
| (1950's and 1960's). Almere 'haven' is the oldest part,
| subsequently Almere has grown in jumps to become the fastest
| growing and now the 7th largest municipality of the Netherlands.
|
| So this why Almere is _the_ place in NL where there is room for
| such experimentation. In other Dutch cities it is usually super
| crowded already and the only places where you can still expand is
| at the edges, and municipalities tend to be very conservative to
| help the new areas blend in with the older ones.
|
| I have some family living in Almere, they work on the other side
| of the bridge so over the years (they have lived there now for 35
| years) that took up a lot of commute time, but where they live is
| child friendly and it is a much nicer house than they would have
| ever had anywhere else in NL on a much larger lot. But there
| isn't - even today - a whole lot of life in Almere compared to
| other Dutch cities and likely this will remain until it is so old
| that it no longer stands out as the 'newest city'. Second
| generation citizens of Almere already are much more at home there
| than those that moved out from Amsterdam (and especially from
| Bijlmermeer), and with every passing generation that will
| improve.
|
| But it will be a long time before people will go to Almere to see
| the city center.
|
| What would _really_ help Almere is a second bridge into Amsterdam
| but there are many reasons why that likely will not happen in the
| next 20 years or so. (see:
| https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJmeerverbinding (Dutch)).
| Scarblac wrote:
| For what it looked like when the first people arrived in 1976:
| https://youtu.be/8U0PJ4Ib378
|
| From that to a few hundred thousand inhabitants is quite
| unusual here.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| I found an area of Almere that has a cluster of really weird
| unique architecture from around 1987 along De Realiteit:
|
| Google Street View:
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3921571,5.2180409,3a,90y,176...
|
| (look up and down De Realiteit to see many freaky houses)
|
| Polderblik:
|
| http://polderblik.nl/
|
| Campus (1987) -- Vertical Red Shipping Containers:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/campus
|
| Cargo (1987) -- Yellow Porta Potties:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/cargo
|
| De Naam van het Huis (1987) -- Half House with Watchtower:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/de-naam-van-het...
|
| Circle (1987) -- Circular Hobbit House:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/cirkel
|
| Many other weird ones:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/meerzicht
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/macabine
|
| You can see them all and more on the map of this Almere
| Architecture Guide:
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/
|
| And there's another road called Aresstraat that contains rows
| of totally unique houses, reportedly so up-and-coming
| architects can try out their weird ideas. Here's a funky
| looking tilted level "House in House" designed by Marc Koehler
| in 2011, which was just up for sale for around 700,000 EUR.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/place/Aresstraat+21,+1363+VJ+Alm...
|
| (Look up and down Aresstraat at all the different architectural
| styles! Down the street a bit it flashes back in time to street
| views from 2009, before most of the neighborhood was even
| built, showing the wide open sand peppered by a few houses and
| construction sites.)
|
| https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/house-house?fbc...
|
| >PROJECT ARCHITECT(S): Marc Koehler; CLIENT: Privately;
| BUILDER: Ubink and Co BV; REALIZATION: 2011
|
| >According to the architect, "House in house" is based on a
| reinterpretation of a traditional Dutch canal house with an
| attic. An arrangement of three 'boxes', which accommodate the
| necessary functions of sleeping, office and entrance,
| structures the interior space.
|
| >The slanted attic window ensures a striking presence of the
| house in the streetscape. Here is the sleeping area with
| skylights to see stars and moon. The floor is placed
| horizontally, which is visible from the outside. The office is
| retracted on the first floor, with its own entrance via a
| spiral staircase. Living takes place in the residual space
| between the boxes. That space is a route with stairs that
| spiral upwards. What are usually the landings is here
| transformed into a series of spacious places, for hobbies,
| music, watching TV or eating. This design keeps living flexible
| and dynamic. The house is also equipped for new interpretations
| that people want to give to the concept of living.
|
| Tour:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WujRwW4_eMw
| yvoschaap wrote:
| Arestreet in streetview 2009 https://www.google.com/maps/plac
| e/Aresstraat+21,+1363+VJ+Alm... walk one step forward, and
| you time machine into 2021!
|
| I think the architecture has more to do that every individual
| plot allowed owners their own design & development.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 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-alseidenstra
| a...
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Are those the lofty peaks of Mt Almere in the background?
| Or just a huge pile of cow shit?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Definitely mount Almere.
|
| The whole thing looks like a render to me on that
| picture.
| lbriner wrote:
| 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 want to be negative because I often wonder about much
| better living environments/thinking but I think that the social
| side of things is often overlooked (at least in the UK) so that
| affordable housing in my friends new estate meant drug dealers
| and large white vans parked up and down her small road next to
| her nice house. You don't want to be a snob but when you work
| hard to afford a nice place to live, you also don't want to be
| imposed upon by those who aren't so bothered about their
| community.
| outside1234 wrote:
| In particular, the floating houses they show. Not sure how that
| scales (or if we want it to scale) and for sure that is going
| to be an expensive maintenance option.
| jeffbee wrote:
| What are some examples of these regretted 1950s brutalist city
| centers?
| lordnacho wrote:
| 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.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| bombcar wrote:
| Some would say they had to be listed to be prevented from
| being torn down.
| lmm wrote:
| Neighbouring Coventry is a more complete example, being
| smaller.
|
| Croydon also has a similar reputation.
| eecc wrote:
| Well, Bijlmer itself has become a mess at some point
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Well, Bijlmer itself was a mess...
|
| Still is, but massively improved compared to the 80's.
| mpol wrote:
| 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.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Lots of those in former SovBloc countries.
| gernb wrote:
| I think maybe the most famous is Brasilia
|
| https://archive.curbed.com/2019/6/7/18657121/brasilia-
| brazil...
| twelvechairs wrote:
| Its not made clear in the article but Almere is exactly one of
| these Brutalist cities. Its only since the late 90s or early
| 2000s they built the new 'city centre' which is an architects
| wonderland to start overcoming its monotony. There's still huge
| expanses of fairly simple, cheap, robust and boring 70s
| housing. This is close to the train station [0] and a typical
| suburban street [1]. Regardless of the buildings the
| Netherlands is the world leader in street design which makes
| this slightly less bleak than others of a similar era.
|
| [0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKF4jGYzEjSPVb3g7
|
| [1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/mFdK333GFYKdQwD97
| fleddr wrote:
| 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.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| 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.
| jacquesm wrote:
| If they had taken a more organic approach from day #1 I think
| that could have been avoided, but then the growth would have
| been much slower. It quite literally feels like a city
| designed behind a drafting table instead of something that
| matured over time. And that's not something that you can buff
| out a few decades later.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Yeah, you see almost the exact same in new streets and new
| sections of existing cities. They aren't made with the idea
| of being organic or adding a little chaos to simulate it.
| They are made with the intent of putting down prefabs in
| the cheapest way possible while still hitting requirements
| and budgets.
|
| Every new project around say, Utrecht, has the same
| "hypermodern" feel to it. Little contrast, straight lines,
| visible patterns, flat and rectangular. They try to add a
| little more chaos to it (probably to avoid being compared
| to Almere) and some more greenery, but it's a far cry from
| the old European city look.
| jacquesm wrote:
| They even try to imitate that (and fail) for instance,
| this area in Beverwijk:
|
| http://overall-pictures.nl/portfolio-3/straat-
| fotografie/bev...
| giantg2 wrote:
| 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 the center
| building with red on both sides). It would have likely been
| better and cheaper to go with a neutral color for the majority of
| the structure and used color on various subpieces or trim.
|
| Even just doing something like the blue floating houses is so
| much better. They have variation. I think it probably also works
| better due to the smaller size (red sports car vs solid red semi
| truck - one can look nice and the other looks obnoxious)
| Luc wrote:
| If it makes you feel better: the colors in that image are
| oversaturated.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That is a huge difference. Much better that way.
| warp wrote:
| Oh wow, indeed. In case you want to see them on streetview,
| the address is Pastelstraat 1, Almere. Here is a link:
| https://goo.gl/maps/mpXgFFd4kGLBinge9
| Beltalowda wrote:
| People would probably get in trouble if they painted
| buildings in the colour as in the BBC article (people
| actually have gotten in problems with the city council, and
| at the very least it would be a _Rijdende Rechter_ episode).
| Dutch people are allergic to bright colours or something.
| [deleted]
| kkfx wrote:
| 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?
| imilk wrote:
| 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, residential, and public
| spaces.
| mpol wrote:
| 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 cycling culture much.
|
| Edit: And every neighbourhood has supermarkets and small
| fastfood and bar locations. It is not that different from other
| dutch cities.
| imilk wrote:
| 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)
| Mo3 wrote:
| 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
| highly walkable and accessible, everything you want to do is
| doable and everywhere you want to go is reachable. You should
| check it out sometime, these pictures don't really show it.
|
| (jacquesm in this thread is spot on too though. There's not
| that much life going on in Almere itself.)
|
| [1]
| https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7&lat=51.48412&lon=8.0871...
| imilk wrote:
| 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 minute walk past monotonous homes. Which is
| not that different than suburbs anywhere else.
| prmoustache wrote:
| 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.
| Mo3 wrote:
| 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 the US, it not only connects the suburbs to the
| city center, but the suburbs to other suburbs as well.
|
| Really, everything you want to do is doable and everywhere
| you want to go is reachable. I miss it.
|
| Regarding coffee/meal/beer, there's little shops or cafes
| or restaurants mixed into the residential areas as well.
|
| This video details the fantastic engineering very well:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP-G-inkkDg
|
| This is specifically about differences between US and
| Europe but also a great watch:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K8KEoZwMRY
| imilk wrote:
| 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.
| Mo3 wrote:
| 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.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Yes, in the USA people choose between living in a city or
| suburb. If you pick suburb you need to use a car all the
| time or be on one of the few major rail lines. People are
| just bringing up how this design seem to capture some of
| the worst parts of suburb living while managing to doge
| the benefits of city living.
| calt wrote:
| > 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.
| imilk wrote:
| 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.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| >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.
| imilk wrote:
| 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 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.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| 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.
| imilk wrote:
| Ok, but I'm talking specifically about Almere. Which
| unless I'm massively mistaken, does not look walkable (in
| most of the residents being able to rely on walking to
| complete most of their daily tasks) at all.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Bikeable, yes. Walkable.. arguable. If you include public
| transport with walkable, sure. I haven't found other
| cities to be particularly less "walkable" than Dutch
| cities when you take away public transport and bikes.
|
| It really depends on what one considers "walkable" if
| anything.
| brailsafe wrote:
| 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?
| Mo3 wrote:
| I was not a particular fan of Almere (please refer to
| jacquesm's post on details), however, it being a Dutch
| city, various general benefits of Dutch city design and
| engineering also apply there - these are what I am really
| trying to point at.
|
| Almere itself is rather boring and devoid of life. It's
| simply artificial land reclaimed from the sea with no
| history or story to it.
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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
| over a larger area. They are functionally similar to cars,
| but on a smaller scale.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Uhh... this seems like an excessively pedantic distinction.
| What's the source of truth you're pulling from here?
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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).
| stingraycharles wrote:
| 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 of thinking, or "you got to see it for
| yourself", before you can fully appreciate the little
| advantages it brings. The other way around is also true:
| I took me a while to understand the dependence that quite
| a few people have upon their car and/or public transport.
| Walking 10km is certainly a bit too much to ask, but
| common enough a distance to work or school, and very
| reasonable for the bicycle.
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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.
| vanviegen wrote:
| So Manhatten, designed for walking, driving and tubing,
| should also be considered suburban?
| imilk wrote:
| 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".
| Mo3 wrote:
| You literally just described Dutch city planning minus
| the last part.
|
| Almere is not the future of living. A over-the-top
| clickbait title does not negate valid statements either.
| calt wrote:
| 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.
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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 because they are
| convenient and as fast as or faster than driving a car or
| using public transport. That is the reason why bicycles
| should be grouped with other vehicles and not with
| walking.
| FabHK wrote:
| > You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles.
|
| 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.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| >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.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| 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.
| todorus wrote:
| It is becoming very clear from your comments you have not
| seen the thing you're criticizing, bur rather argue from
| a paradigm you're familiar with. So I am going to join
| the chorus here and advise you to visit a dutch city, so
| you can yourself experience that there's more than one
| design paradigm that is valid, when it comes to urban
| planning.
| Mo3 wrote:
| 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, you could argue that that makes the
| Netherlands a relatively suburban place in general - the
| fact that it is one of the most densely populated countries
| on earth would disagree.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| 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.
| Mo3 wrote:
| Hello fellow Amsterdammer "(^[?]^)
|
| 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
| jltsiren wrote:
| I meant that in the other direction. The speed and
| flexibility of personal vehicles encourage suburban
| development in the city. Cars created the low-density
| suburban sprawl. Bicycles seem to encourage moderate-
| density mixed-use areas where the services are spread out
| all over the area.
| Mo3 wrote:
| Pardon me but doesn't that directly negate what you said
| here?
|
| > Places that want to attract people must be close to
| each other in local centers, or people don't go to them.
| Melkman wrote:
| 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.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| But every parking spot in the picture seems to have a car
| parked in it.
| Mo3 wrote:
| Of course there's still cars. They are just not used
| exclusively or frequently. If I remember the statistics
| correctly, in cities trips are made 30-45% by bicycle,
| 25-40% by public transport and the rest is cars.
| wila wrote:
| and there I was thinking this would be about floriade [0], which
| happens to be in Almere as well.
|
| [0] https://floriade.com/en/
| jacquesm wrote:
| It wasn't always so though, there still is the Floriade park
| (these days called Amstelpark) next to the RAI:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstelpark
|
| It's a gorgeous park and one of the lesser trafficked ones in
| Amsterdam, well worth a visit.
| PortiaBerries wrote:
| Some of those buildings remind me of The Objective Room in "That
| Hideous Strength."
|
| "They suggested some kind of pattern. Their peculiar ugliness
| consisted in the very fact that they kept on suggesting it and
| then frustrating the expectation thus aroused."
| dncornholio wrote:
| 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 Almere for the city.
| bombcar wrote:
| 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.
| jacquesm wrote:
| For the longest time it was called the bedroom of Amsterdam.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-09 23:00 UTC)