5 ms·

The fact that there isn't a single dutch city in the top 10, but 3 in car-infested Canada tells me that I have very different standards for "livable".

bergenty 4y ago
I love “car-infested”. Taking public transport and living densely is my version of hell.
- burntoutfire 4y ago
  I think it's most people's version of hell. Even in Scandinavian countries, well-off people live in houses on a plot of land, not in apartments.
- sascha_sl 4y ago
  You don't need to live densely to have public transport and access to services. US city planning (and Canada for the most part) have a problem with either allowing very high density (in limited space, so you get huge towers) or single family homes, very few things in between. I live in a mixed used era, in a 5 story appartment block, which is the high end of density around here. I have two tram lines within 400 meters and an S-Bahn station less than 100m away. And also, dutch cities allow for bikes, if public transport isn't your thing.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    See also: US suburbs in the streetcar era, which were built just densely enough that it was practical for everyone to walk to streetcar stops. You can see what's left of that period in some neighborhoods of cities like Boston and San Francisco, where row houses that were once mass-produced to appeal to the middle class have become multi-million-dollar 'luxury' homes almost entirely from the total unavailability of that kind of housing and living style elsewhere. The equivalent mid-density construction is basically nonexistent in new construction today because of exclusionary zoning. It's only recently that some states have started forcibly re-legalizing this sort of thing by overriding local zoning codes, and it will still take decades at best for new construction to really catch up.
- LeonidasXIV 4y ago
  Cars make cities worse for everyone, whereas public transport makes cities better for everyone, even people using cars because there is less traffic. I enjoy biking, public transport and the density to support a nice shopping/bar/party street within walking distance, but what do I know, living in the second most livable city.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    I enjoy biking and hiking in the woods (not city streets), driving cars and living 20 minutes away from a major city so I can go to shops/bars/parties when I feel like it. I also like gardening and farming, wood and metal working and generally doing all kinds of projects involving metal casting, glass blowing, pottery making etc. I would never be able to do comfortably living in a city. The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      > The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix. They won't fix it, because we still need to make cars. If you get an older car that you can repair yourself and keep going long past its point of planned obsolescence, and convert it to run on a cleaner fuel like propane, then your ecological impact will be a lot less.
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      > The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix. How are they supposed to fix it? In many countries we still burn gas & coal for electricty. The cars need to be produced, which is alot more resource intensive than building better public transports, since a train transports hundreds of individuals at once, and can serve the transportation needs of thousands over the course of a day, the amount of material and energy for fabrication per-passenger is far lower. And thats's not even taking into account total service-time and cost of recycling. The cars need parking spots when not in use, which requires space that could otherwise be used for housing/parks/recreation/businesses. Public Transport systems have far fewer downtimes (even when I dont ride the train, someone else does). Plus, they are more space efficient to begin with. And of course cars need roads. Lots of them, and no matter how many are built, there still seem to be traffic jams.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  1. Use a bicycle; public transport is the (popular) backup. 2. Living in a city means living densely (for some definition of dense). If you don't like that, you should probably not live in a city in the first place. 3. Dutch cities are not really that dense in my experience.
- jakkos 4y ago
  Can I ask why? I'm genuinely curious, as I feel the opposite
- isubasinghe 4y ago
  What is wrong with public transport? I understand in America it's not great, but having frequent, reliable, fast, clean & safe public transport is amazing. Public Transport in a lot of Western European countries are like that with the exception of the DeutscheBahn (DB is hell).
  - bergenty 4y ago
    I just find waiting in a station, having to account for schedules, the annoyance of having to deal with bags and luggage and sitting close to people in that setting not all that enjoyable.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - debesyla 4y ago
      Well, to be fair, any good public transport comes at least every 15 minutes (and great public transport comes every 5 minutes or more often), so schedules aren't a problem if the current transport system is managed good...
    - dewey 4y ago
      Which public transport system is your assumption based on? I used many public transport systems (Mostly Europe and Asia) and usually you don't have to account for schedules if you are in a city as trains / subways / busses just arrive every few minutes. The rare case where you have to take a lot of luggage can always be covered by taxis. In no way is that more annoying than finding parking, sitting in traffic, taking your car to maintenance etc.
    - sascha_sl 4y ago
      Needing to account for schedules is a symptom of a bad public transit system. Good systems have buses/trains show up frequently enough that you can just go without waiting more than 10 minutes, until the point you're taking regional trips, and even then about ~30 minutes of maximum wait is normal in Germany. Also, it sounds like you're talking about long-distance services here. But this thread is about local to regional services where people don't generally carry around baggage.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  Where I live, public transport is a breeze. Roomy, punctual, good serving frequencies, clean, constantly improving (more stations, modernizing vehicles). I don't have to concentrate on driving, I dont have to worry where to put the vehicle when its not in use, I have not been in a traffic-jam for year. And they cost less than owning a car.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >Where I live, public transport is a breeze. Roomy, punctual, good serving frequencies, clean, constantly improving Can I ask where that is?
- sime2009 4y ago
  The problem with cars is the huge negative effect it has on city planning and neighborhoods. It is not really about cars vs public transport. It is about cities built for cars vs cities built for people. I live in the Netherlands and have lived many years in a big western style modern city (Melbourne). It is day and night. Neighborhoods for cars: * Noise * Pollution * Dangerous for all, especially children and cyclists * Discourages simple outside exercise like walking or jogging * Forces car ownership. You can't do anything without a car. * Massive amounts of space are required for roadways, parking etc. * Sprawl. Everything has to be spread out. * Anything immediately outside your home is unpleasant. Neighborhoods for people: * Quiet * Less pollution * Safe. Children can play outside and go to the park or shops by themselves, or visit their friends by foot or bike. (I sent my 7 year old to get a couple things from the supermarket last week.) * Biking and walking is pleasant * You don't need to buy a car * The neighborhood isn't full of ugly car parks. * neighborhood is compact, making biking and walking much more viable. * more space for public green areas
Flashtoo 4y ago
Amsterdam is #9 in the report (scoring 0.1 lower than Toronto), but not mentioned in the article for some reason.
EdSchouten 4y ago
I don't know exactly what the criteria are of being included in the list, but the Netherlands doesn't have that many large cities. Only Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague have a population of >500k. If the cutoff is at >250k, the list only grows by one city; Utrecht.
yread 4y ago
Hey don't let the secret out. Do you want all those people who read the economist and believe their lists to come over here and ruin the housing market even more?!
lbrito 4y ago
Paging Not Just Bikes! Code red, someone made a lost where Amsterdam is not number 1. Outrageous!

bergenty 4y ago

I love “car-infested”. Taking public transport and living densely is my version of hell.

burntoutfire 4y ago
I think it's most people's version of hell. Even in Scandinavian countries, well-off people live in houses on a plot of land, not in apartments.
sascha_sl 4y ago
You don't need to live densely to have public transport and access to services. US city planning (and Canada for the most part) have a problem with either allowing very high density (in limited space, so you get huge towers) or single family homes, very few things in between. I live in a mixed used era, in a 5 story appartment block, which is the high end of density around here. I have two tram lines within 400 meters and an S-Bahn station less than 100m away. And also, dutch cities allow for bikes, if public transport isn't your thing.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  See also: US suburbs in the streetcar era, which were built just densely enough that it was practical for everyone to walk to streetcar stops. You can see what's left of that period in some neighborhoods of cities like Boston and San Francisco, where row houses that were once mass-produced to appeal to the middle class have become multi-million-dollar 'luxury' homes almost entirely from the total unavailability of that kind of housing and living style elsewhere. The equivalent mid-density construction is basically nonexistent in new construction today because of exclusionary zoning. It's only recently that some states have started forcibly re-legalizing this sort of thing by overriding local zoning codes, and it will still take decades at best for new construction to really catch up.
LeonidasXIV 4y ago
Cars make cities worse for everyone, whereas public transport makes cities better for everyone, even people using cars because there is less traffic. I enjoy biking, public transport and the density to support a nice shopping/bar/party street within walking distance, but what do I know, living in the second most livable city.
- bergenty 4y ago
  I enjoy biking and hiking in the woods (not city streets), driving cars and living 20 minutes away from a major city so I can go to shops/bars/parties when I feel like it. I also like gardening and farming, wood and metal working and generally doing all kinds of projects involving metal casting, glass blowing, pottery making etc. I would never be able to do comfortably living in a city. The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    > The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix. They won't fix it, because we still need to make cars. If you get an older car that you can repair yourself and keep going long past its point of planned obsolescence, and convert it to run on a cleaner fuel like propane, then your ecological impact will be a lot less.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    > The only downside to car culture is environmental concerns that I really hope electric cars fix. How are they supposed to fix it? In many countries we still burn gas & coal for electricty. The cars need to be produced, which is alot more resource intensive than building better public transports, since a train transports hundreds of individuals at once, and can serve the transportation needs of thousands over the course of a day, the amount of material and energy for fabrication per-passenger is far lower. And thats's not even taking into account total service-time and cost of recycling. The cars need parking spots when not in use, which requires space that could otherwise be used for housing/parks/recreation/businesses. Public Transport systems have far fewer downtimes (even when I dont ride the train, someone else does). Plus, they are more space efficient to begin with. And of course cars need roads. Lots of them, and no matter how many are built, there still seem to be traffic jams.
einpoklum 4y ago
1. Use a bicycle; public transport is the (popular) backup. 2. Living in a city means living densely (for some definition of dense). If you don't like that, you should probably not live in a city in the first place. 3. Dutch cities are not really that dense in my experience.
jakkos 4y ago
Can I ask why? I'm genuinely curious, as I feel the opposite
isubasinghe 4y ago
What is wrong with public transport? I understand in America it's not great, but having frequent, reliable, fast, clean & safe public transport is amazing. Public Transport in a lot of Western European countries are like that with the exception of the DeutscheBahn (DB is hell).
- bergenty 4y ago
  I just find waiting in a station, having to account for schedules, the annoyance of having to deal with bags and luggage and sitting close to people in that setting not all that enjoyable.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - debesyla 4y ago
    Well, to be fair, any good public transport comes at least every 15 minutes (and great public transport comes every 5 minutes or more often), so schedules aren't a problem if the current transport system is managed good...
  - dewey 4y ago
    Which public transport system is your assumption based on? I used many public transport systems (Mostly Europe and Asia) and usually you don't have to account for schedules if you are in a city as trains / subways / busses just arrive every few minutes. The rare case where you have to take a lot of luggage can always be covered by taxis. In no way is that more annoying than finding parking, sitting in traffic, taking your car to maintenance etc.
  - sascha_sl 4y ago
    Needing to account for schedules is a symptom of a bad public transit system. Good systems have buses/trains show up frequently enough that you can just go without waiting more than 10 minutes, until the point you're taking regional trips, and even then about ~30 minutes of maximum wait is normal in Germany. Also, it sounds like you're talking about long-distance services here. But this thread is about local to regional services where people don't generally carry around baggage.
usrbinbash 4y ago
Where I live, public transport is a breeze. Roomy, punctual, good serving frequencies, clean, constantly improving (more stations, modernizing vehicles). I don't have to concentrate on driving, I dont have to worry where to put the vehicle when its not in use, I have not been in a traffic-jam for year. And they cost less than owning a car.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Where I live, public transport is a breeze. Roomy, punctual, good serving frequencies, clean, constantly improving Can I ask where that is?
sime2009 4y ago
The problem with cars is the huge negative effect it has on city planning and neighborhoods. It is not really about cars vs public transport. It is about cities built for cars vs cities built for people. I live in the Netherlands and have lived many years in a big western style modern city (Melbourne). It is day and night. Neighborhoods for cars: * Noise * Pollution * Dangerous for all, especially children and cyclists * Discourages simple outside exercise like walking or jogging * Forces car ownership. You can't do anything without a car. * Massive amounts of space are required for roadways, parking etc. * Sprawl. Everything has to be spread out. * Anything immediately outside your home is unpleasant. Neighborhoods for people: * Quiet * Less pollution * Safe. Children can play outside and go to the park or shops by themselves, or visit their friends by foot or bike. (I sent my 7 year old to get a couple things from the supermarket last week.) * Biking and walking is pleasant * You don't need to buy a car * The neighborhood isn't full of ugly car parks. * neighborhood is compact, making biking and walking much more viable. * more space for public green areas

Flashtoo 4y ago

Amsterdam is #9 in the report (scoring 0.1 lower than Toronto), but not mentioned in the article for some reason.

EdSchouten 4y ago

I don't know exactly what the criteria are of being included in the list, but the Netherlands doesn't have that many large cities. Only Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague have a population of >500k. If the cutoff is at >250k, the list only grows by one city; Utrecht.

yread 4y ago

Hey don't let the secret out. Do you want all those people who read the economist and believe their lists to come over here and ruin the housing market even more?!

lbrito 4y ago

Paging Not Just Bikes! Code red, someone made a lost where Amsterdam is not number 1. Outrageous!