4 ms·

> 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 req

• imilk 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    >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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
          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 4y ago
          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.
          • Vinnl 4y ago
            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?)
            • imilk 4y ago
              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.
              • Vinnl 4y ago
• j16sdiz 4y ago
  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.