Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mo3 | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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.

Uhh… this seems like an excessively pedantic distinction. What’s the source of truth you’re pulling from here?

People may have different definitions for "urban" and "suburban". Regardless of the words used, there is a huge difference between a city designed for walking and a city designed for people using vehicles (cars, public transport, bicycles).

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 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.

>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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

So Manhatten, designed for walking, driving and tubing, should also be considered suburban?

I think you're meandering a bit from the topic. Manhattan is not similar at all to Almere. Manhattan is filled with multi-use zoning and multiple modes of transportation options on every block, while still being highly walkable. It's also not a great biking city.

But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".

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.

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.

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.

Hello fellow Amsterdammer ヾ(＾∇＾)

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

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.

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.

That was for dense urban areas where people walk instead of using a bicycle. If most people are comfortable using bicycles, businesses have fewer reasons to concentrate on more expensive central areas, as people can reach them equally well a bit farther away. The more mobility people have on the average, the more mobility the society will expect from everyone.

Almere looks very similar to large parts of Florida, just with more town houses. Both look like master planned subdivisions with layouts that look interesting from the air interspersed with canals surrounding commercial areas.

I think it's fair to compare Almere to American suburbs. It's significantly more suburban than many other cities, and it arguably a suburb of Amsterdam. Many people living there work in Amsterdam. And much of Almere is fairly car-centric; build for cars coming from highways, down arterial roads, to local access roads to cul-de-sacs. (I've had family living in such a cul-de-sac for ages.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the question here that might lie at the core of the disagreement here might be: what advantages do you think a 'properly' walkable city has, that a city designed for both walking and cycling does not have? (i.e. if walking is not a goal in and of itself?)

Not exactly. Almere is not walkable but it is bikable. The main issue is whether or not bikability can supplant walkability in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive.

For me, walking > biking > cars and you cannot create the same dynamic urban environment if an area is not walkable.

Yes, that's why I asked what a "walkable" city can provide in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive, that a city with Almere's infrastructure can't?

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.

I don't know if there is a language barrier going on but I'm explicitly saying that Almere is not a walkable city (in most of the residents being able to rely on walking to complete most of their daily tasks). The majority of neighborhoods where people live are ~10 blocks wide stretches of identical row homes pretty spaced out around a town center without amenities in their neighborhood.

https://imgur.com/a/xgbRE15

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.

> I don't know if there is a language barrier going on but I'm explicitly saying that Almere is not a walkable city

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.

Almere is the Dutch equivalent of US suburbs I agree.

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.

Flevoland sounds like an Efteling style Dutch theme park dedicated to Guy Fieri

Walking with friends can be an important part of social life. You can talk when walk, but you can't do the same on bike.

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.

But every parking spot in the picture seems to have a car parked in it.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com