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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
You can't create and buy a thousand years of history.
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.
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.
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.
But even average Dutch cities are much more walkable and bikeable than basically anywhere else.
It really depends on what one considers "walkable" if anything.
For me, walking > biking > cars and you cannot create the same dynamic urban environment if an area is not walkable.
The way I see it, the city centre is perfectly walkable and thus can provide everything needed (the reasons it doesn't have more to do with Almere's history), while being accessible to everyone in the "suburbs" with practically zero of the downsides of cars (accidents, pollution, noise pollution, etc.). So I'm really curious what you think Almere cannot provide due to its being so bikable.
There is 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. There is no real mix of residential, commercial, park, and event space that create a dynamic living environment.
We can keep going back and forth but it seems like you don't really understand the value of having an entire city be walkable, not the the city center. Because just having a walkable center is not a great urban city; it's the definition of poor planning reminiscent of suburbs all over the world.
It feels like it :P I'm not asking if Almere is walkable or not, but why you think that it is bad that it is not.
In other words:
> We can keep going back and forth but it seems like you don't really understand the value of having an entire city be walkable
Indeed, I'd like you to explain this to me, especially in the context of a city that is bikable. What does it mean for an environment to be "more dynamic"? As far as I can see, people switch between residential and commercial areas, parks, and event spaces all the time - it's just that they take the bike to do so.
Obviously America is bloody BIG compared to the Netherlands and the distance between Almere and Amsterdam is smaller so you can use a bicycle. But the concept is the same: a place where middle class people with families live and commute to the city for work and entertainment.
Almere is a one off because Flevoland was created. We don't have the space for more Almeres- and thank God for that.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
> Places that want to attract people must be close to each other in local centers, or people don't go to them.
But on top of that, there's bicycle paths and sidewalks everywhere. Cars are not your only option; just one of the options for leaving the city (there are also plenty of trains and buses). It's a well-designed suburb, rather than the bleak car-only sprawls of the US.
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.
I'm sure it's a nice place to live, but this is not the future of urban life.
(I put a 1km marker on the map for reference)