5 ms·

Come on now. Many people in the Netherlands live in one city and work in another. Cost of living prohibits most people from living right next to where they wo

Come on now. Many people in the Netherlands live in one city and work in another. Cost of living prohibits most people from living right next to where they work. I do that 10 minute bike ride.. to the train station.. then I take the train 1h in each direction three times a week and consider myself lucky for not having to do it every day. The trains are packed.

baby 4y ago
I think it's mostly a problem in big cities in Europe, whereas it's everywhere in the US
- radarsat1 4y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I think the situation with public transport is vastly better in (western) Europe compared to North America, for a variety of reasons, a major one being that especially in NL almost every street has a double-laned bike path next to it. It really does make a difference to have that infrastructure in place, because people use it and this has major lifestyle and health benefits. But a claim that some majority of people can just bike 10 or 20 minutes to the office was just a bit wild considering my experience living here in NL and taking the train so often. Having said that, it is true that I can bike anywhere in the city I live in within half an hour, and I don't own a car because I can get anywhere by bike or train. The fact that I can do these things allows me to work in another city, instead of being bound to live in a certain restricted location, without even owning a car. But many people do drive, don't be confused. There are times when it would be really convenient to use a car, and I would be using a car sharing service if it weren't for the fact that my license is not valid here and I need to pass tests which is a long process.
  - baby 4y ago
    I don’t think that’s the claim. I would spend 3 hours per day in commute living in the bay area. You’re underestimating US commute time.
- clnq 4y ago
  Yeah, but it's still a universal problem in high paying tech because their offices are in big cities (and sometimes expensive small cities). Editing to clarify - by tech being centred around expensive cities I don’t mean that tech offices are in urban areas rather than suburban. I mean that the large tech companies generally are in cities and towns that are more expensive than many other cities and towns. For example, there are cheap and pleasant places big tech workers have moved to during WFH times instead of staying in the Silicon Valley-SF region of CA. But some of these towns don’t have a big office building in sight.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >universal problem in high paying tech It's by no means universal. A lot of tech is out in suburban office parks, some of which admittedly has its own traffic problems, e.g. Silicon Valley and suburban Washington DC.
    - clnq 4y ago
      Hmm, I didn’t express myself clearly. I edited my comment to clarify what I meant.
  - berkes 4y ago
    It's not "universal". Suburban city-planning is a US thing, almost exclusively (I'm told Canada follows suit). Most cities allow mixed commerce-living. Meaning there's offices, shops, factories in-between and below housing. Yet US suburban planning -by law- disallows offices (and shops and factories) to be mixed with housing. You are often literally not allowed to live close to work (or work close to your home). that isn't universal at all.
berkes 4y ago
I said exactly that. Only that you can choose to work and live in Amsterdam, ~15 minutes cycling from work. Or Eindhoven, Nijmegen, even Enschede or Groningen. Yet many people choose to live 30 minutes car-commute (or train) from their work. E.g. because it's easier to find a place there (which suits their wishes). Reverse: I'm certain that if you live in, say, Nijmegen, you can find a job there, but many people choose to work in Arnhem, Eindhoven or Amsterdam instead travelling up and down every day. I know. I've been there done that. In all directions.
- tigerlily 4y ago
  I had to work in Arnhem once, but I chose to live in Nijmegen. If I timed it right I could do 10 minutes on the bike, 12 minutes by train and another 10 minutes by bike again. Most commutes were 40 minutes all up, which I found pretty workable. I didn't want the hassle of owning a car.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  It still sounds like you're sacrificing your personal life for the sake of a commute. Good commute? Crap living situation. Good living situation? Crappy commute. Or I could just work from home and have a good living situation and no commute.
  - berkes 4y ago
    You're missing my point. In the US, in most places, it is illegal to have work and home close to each other. You are forced to choose between commuting and WFH. In Europe no such laws exist. If anything, the opposite is cemented in laws. Meaning it's often possible to work close from where you live and vice versa. I often work from home. But can choose to get on my bike and be in an office with colleagues, beer, pingpong and noise when I need it. My point was that this choice is important. And that good city planning allows for such choices
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > it is illegal to have work and home close to each other. What do you mean by illegal?

baby 4y ago

I think it's mostly a problem in big cities in Europe, whereas it's everywhere in the US

radarsat1 4y ago
Don't get me wrong, I think the situation with public transport is vastly better in (western) Europe compared to North America, for a variety of reasons, a major one being that especially in NL almost every street has a double-laned bike path next to it. It really does make a difference to have that infrastructure in place, because people use it and this has major lifestyle and health benefits. But a claim that some majority of people can just bike 10 or 20 minutes to the office was just a bit wild considering my experience living here in NL and taking the train so often. Having said that, it is true that I can bike anywhere in the city I live in within half an hour, and I don't own a car because I can get anywhere by bike or train. The fact that I can do these things allows me to work in another city, instead of being bound to live in a certain restricted location, without even owning a car. But many people do drive, don't be confused. There are times when it would be really convenient to use a car, and I would be using a car sharing service if it weren't for the fact that my license is not valid here and I need to pass tests which is a long process.
- baby 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s the claim. I would spend 3 hours per day in commute living in the bay area. You’re underestimating US commute time.
clnq 4y ago
Yeah, but it's still a universal problem in high paying tech because their offices are in big cities (and sometimes expensive small cities). Editing to clarify - by tech being centred around expensive cities I don’t mean that tech offices are in urban areas rather than suburban. I mean that the large tech companies generally are in cities and towns that are more expensive than many other cities and towns. For example, there are cheap and pleasant places big tech workers have moved to during WFH times instead of staying in the Silicon Valley-SF region of CA. But some of these towns don’t have a big office building in sight.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >universal problem in high paying tech It's by no means universal. A lot of tech is out in suburban office parks, some of which admittedly has its own traffic problems, e.g. Silicon Valley and suburban Washington DC.
  - clnq 4y ago
    Hmm, I didn’t express myself clearly. I edited my comment to clarify what I meant.
- berkes 4y ago
  It's not "universal". Suburban city-planning is a US thing, almost exclusively (I'm told Canada follows suit). Most cities allow mixed commerce-living. Meaning there's offices, shops, factories in-between and below housing. Yet US suburban planning -by law- disallows offices (and shops and factories) to be mixed with housing. You are often literally not allowed to live close to work (or work close to your home). that isn't universal at all.

berkes 4y ago

I said exactly that. Only that you can choose to work and live in Amsterdam, ~15 minutes cycling from work. Or Eindhoven, Nijmegen, even Enschede or Groningen. Yet many people choose to live 30 minutes car-commute (or train) from their work. E.g. because it's easier to find a place there (which suits their wishes). Reverse: I'm certain that if you live in, say, Nijmegen, you can find a job there, but many people choose to work in Arnhem, Eindhoven or Amsterdam instead travelling up and down every day. I know. I've been there done that. In all directions.

tigerlily 4y ago
I had to work in Arnhem once, but I chose to live in Nijmegen. If I timed it right I could do 10 minutes on the bike, 12 minutes by train and another 10 minutes by bike again. Most commutes were 40 minutes all up, which I found pretty workable. I didn't want the hassle of owning a car.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
It still sounds like you're sacrificing your personal life for the sake of a commute. Good commute? Crap living situation. Good living situation? Crappy commute. Or I could just work from home and have a good living situation and no commute.
- berkes 4y ago
  You're missing my point. In the US, in most places, it is illegal to have work and home close to each other. You are forced to choose between commuting and WFH. In Europe no such laws exist. If anything, the opposite is cemented in laws. Meaning it's often possible to work close from where you live and vice versa. I often work from home. But can choose to get on my bike and be in an office with colleagues, beer, pingpong and noise when I need it. My point was that this choice is important. And that good city planning allows for such choices
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > it is illegal to have work and home close to each other. What do you mean by illegal?