4 ms·

>I do wonder how this works for families? It's marginally harder. They make do, the ones majorly affected by the slight change in margin go elsewhere. Same a

>I do wonder how this works for families? It's marginally harder. They make do, the ones majorly affected by the slight change in margin go elsewhere. Same as with every other quality of life issue. Look at the incentives. Large organizations with diffuse responsibility (e.g. government) don't have values other than following the incentives. Families and seniors suck up tons of the city's social services budget and don't engage in much taxable activity per capita. The incentives are there for the city to want them gone and there is no incentive for the city to not to things that make them want to leave. The counter incentive that applies to all the people (politicians, bureaucrats, etc,) in the system but not to the system as a whole is the incentive not to do anything too terrible or mean spirited and society likes families and doesn't want to harm them. That's what causes things to reach some semblance of an equilibrium.

jacquesm 5y ago
Have you lived in NL?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Have you worked in government? (I'll settle for a comparably silo'd government adjacent BigCo).
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    What kind of non-relevant answer is that? I asked you a polite and to the point question.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      > What kind of non-relevant answer is that? >I asked you a polite and to the point question. We're all capable of reading between the lines here. You asked the question because a more snide "tell me you've never lived in NL without telling me you lived in NL" or "yikes" doesn't fly here so you phrase it as a question (just like asking the question wouldn't fly elsewhere where the local norms are to be snide or offensive). I say "no" you use that as justification for saying I have no idea what I'm talking about. I say yes and you assert my experience is not relevant or whip out a No True Scotsman. It's just a bunch of BS rhetoric that serves as a barrier to whatever the actual disagreement and debate is. If my knowledge is so far off base, from lack of experience or otherwise then this should be a short debate. Do you disagree with my analysis on the incentives that cause government policy that makes life marginally more difficult for families to be formed? It appears you disagree with some part of it, so which part and how and why? And for the record I've lived there for months but not in a major urban area and not raising a family. Edit: edited to answer his question.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        I note that you consistently refuse to answer my simple question. The degree to which you are breaking the HN guidelines with this comment is off the scale, so you probably should re-read those. Sometimes a question is just a question. Ok, so you've lived here, that makes the discussion a lot simpler. If you split up NL into cities, towns and rural then cars have a several major functions: - to travel between cities and towns where public transport coverage is bad - to travel longer distances - to carry larger loads than you can on a bike - to help those with limited personal mobility get around - various emergency services Bikes are - to the Dutch - a way of life. Everybody here has a bike, even the elderly. And with everybody I mean everybody that's is capable of cycling will have a bike (and often more than one). Simply because for the very large majority of your outings it will be the fastest and most practical solution. Society here is quite literally designed around cycling to the point where you can take your bike on the train if you want, and if it's a folding bike you can do so for free. For someone not born here it is obvious that this takes a lot of adjustment. If you are used to having a car at your disposal and using that car for every trip that is too long to walk then obviously it will be frustrating. Because you will find that parking fees are high, that finding parking is next to impossible and that the speeds of cars in towns are as low (or lower!) than cycling. It is mostly a matter of expectations. When I lived in the USA I found it hard to stomach that I could not cycle wherever I wanted. There simply wasn't a safe way to cross certain roads or areas without being in a vehicle. Walking was frowned upon and often unsafe. Both of these are the result of urban planning: the dominant vehicle for NL is the bicycle, the dominant vehicle in the USA is the car. To desire a vehicle for which the environment is not explicitly designed is going to result in impedance mismatch that manifests as frustration. The solution is to go with the flow, and to realize that if millions of people are doing something, then you too can get used to it.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >Bikes are - to the Dutch - a way of life. Is there a way to find other areas that are similarly bike friendly. In all honesty I have an aversion to moving to a country below sea level given the consequences of climate change we will soon face.
kypro 5y ago
Yeah, I mean I'm not even opposed to pushing families out of cities, I just wish getting rid of cars wasn't sold as a universally good thing by those in charge. I visited the Amsterdam a couple of years back and as a tourist I loved it, but that's kind of the problem. Cities like London and Amsterdam aren't build with families in mind anymore, which again is fine, but if we're going to celebrate this as an achievement, we need to at least recognise that this kind of city design only really works well for a subset of the population -- and the typical young, city-based HN reader is probably one of the demographics which benefits from it the most.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I agree. I wish we could just be honest with ourselves. Boom towns don't try and aren't expected to be family friendly. Why should highly expensive urban cores be any different? But acting like there's not winners and loser is silly and isn't fooling anyone.
- em500 5y ago
  Amsterdam is mostly fine, especially out side the inner city ring which is overrun with tourists, but only a few km2, probably the size of 2 or 3 Hyde Parks. I don't understand why you think it's not good for families. We live in Amsterdam, have stayed in villages and rural areas (holidays, family), and we (including our 8 year old) don't think we'd be better off anywhere else.
mpol 5y ago
> "Families and seniors suck up tons of the city's social services budget and don't engage in much taxable activity per capita. The incentives are there for the city to want them gone and there is no incentive for the city to not to things that make them want to leave." No, you have it backwards. Most big cities see a lot of people on wellfare, often living alone. A city like Rotterdam is known for this kind of poverty. The city government really does try to be there for the people. The centre of Amsterdam is not a great place for raising children. Going 5 km to a quieter neighbourhood will already be much better, often it is a choice by the people themselves. By the way, these old city centres were never great for raising children. Up to the 1960s these were the poor parts of town, if you could get away from the rot you were much better off.

jacquesm 5y ago

Have you lived in NL?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Have you worked in government? (I'll settle for a comparably silo'd government adjacent BigCo).
- jacquesm 5y ago
  What kind of non-relevant answer is that? I asked you a polite and to the point question.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > What kind of non-relevant answer is that? >I asked you a polite and to the point question. We're all capable of reading between the lines here. You asked the question because a more snide "tell me you've never lived in NL without telling me you lived in NL" or "yikes" doesn't fly here so you phrase it as a question (just like asking the question wouldn't fly elsewhere where the local norms are to be snide or offensive). I say "no" you use that as justification for saying I have no idea what I'm talking about. I say yes and you assert my experience is not relevant or whip out a No True Scotsman. It's just a bunch of BS rhetoric that serves as a barrier to whatever the actual disagreement and debate is. If my knowledge is so far off base, from lack of experience or otherwise then this should be a short debate. Do you disagree with my analysis on the incentives that cause government policy that makes life marginally more difficult for families to be formed? It appears you disagree with some part of it, so which part and how and why? And for the record I've lived there for months but not in a major urban area and not raising a family. Edit: edited to answer his question.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      I note that you consistently refuse to answer my simple question. The degree to which you are breaking the HN guidelines with this comment is off the scale, so you probably should re-read those. Sometimes a question is just a question. Ok, so you've lived here, that makes the discussion a lot simpler. If you split up NL into cities, towns and rural then cars have a several major functions: - to travel between cities and towns where public transport coverage is bad - to travel longer distances - to carry larger loads than you can on a bike - to help those with limited personal mobility get around - various emergency services Bikes are - to the Dutch - a way of life. Everybody here has a bike, even the elderly. And with everybody I mean everybody that's is capable of cycling will have a bike (and often more than one). Simply because for the very large majority of your outings it will be the fastest and most practical solution. Society here is quite literally designed around cycling to the point where you can take your bike on the train if you want, and if it's a folding bike you can do so for free. For someone not born here it is obvious that this takes a lot of adjustment. If you are used to having a car at your disposal and using that car for every trip that is too long to walk then obviously it will be frustrating. Because you will find that parking fees are high, that finding parking is next to impossible and that the speeds of cars in towns are as low (or lower!) than cycling. It is mostly a matter of expectations. When I lived in the USA I found it hard to stomach that I could not cycle wherever I wanted. There simply wasn't a safe way to cross certain roads or areas without being in a vehicle. Walking was frowned upon and often unsafe. Both of these are the result of urban planning: the dominant vehicle for NL is the bicycle, the dominant vehicle in the USA is the car. To desire a vehicle for which the environment is not explicitly designed is going to result in impedance mismatch that manifests as frustration. The solution is to go with the flow, and to realize that if millions of people are doing something, then you too can get used to it.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >Bikes are - to the Dutch - a way of life. Is there a way to find other areas that are similarly bike friendly. In all honesty I have an aversion to moving to a country below sea level given the consequences of climate change we will soon face.

kypro 5y ago

Yeah, I mean I'm not even opposed to pushing families out of cities, I just wish getting rid of cars wasn't sold as a universally good thing by those in charge. I visited the Amsterdam a couple of years back and as a tourist I loved it, but that's kind of the problem. Cities like London and Amsterdam aren't build with families in mind anymore, which again is fine, but if we're going to celebrate this as an achievement, we need to at least recognise that this kind of city design only really works well for a subset of the population -- and the typical young, city-based HN reader is probably one of the demographics which benefits from it the most.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I agree. I wish we could just be honest with ourselves. Boom towns don't try and aren't expected to be family friendly. Why should highly expensive urban cores be any different? But acting like there's not winners and loser is silly and isn't fooling anyone.
em500 5y ago
Amsterdam is mostly fine, especially out side the inner city ring which is overrun with tourists, but only a few km2, probably the size of 2 or 3 Hyde Parks. I don't understand why you think it's not good for families. We live in Amsterdam, have stayed in villages and rural areas (holidays, family), and we (including our 8 year old) don't think we'd be better off anywhere else.

mpol 5y ago

> "Families and seniors suck up tons of the city's social services budget and don't engage in much taxable activity per capita. The incentives are there for the city to want them gone and there is no incentive for the city to not to things that make them want to leave." No, you have it backwards. Most big cities see a lot of people on wellfare, often living alone. A city like Rotterdam is known for this kind of poverty. The city government really does try to be there for the people. The centre of Amsterdam is not a great place for raising children. Going 5 km to a quieter neighbourhood will already be much better, often it is a choice by the people themselves. By the way, these old city centres were never great for raising children. Up to the 1960s these were the poor parts of town, if you could get away from the rot you were much better off.