4 ms·

In my opinion, western countries (namely the USA) should model itself after Amsterdam and the Dutch in general. They figured out (or at least improved on) tran

by xyst 3y ago

In my opinion, western countries (namely the USA) should model itself after Amsterdam and the Dutch in general. They figured out (or at least improved on) transportation of people. City design is amazing and they have a multitude of options to move around (bike, train, walkable, or micro transportation). Their cities are much more cleaner, enjoyable, not as noisy, and everyone in general seems much more happier. Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an absolute necessity to own a car. Minimal alternatives. High dependency on highway / street infrastructure that requires significant resources to build AND maintain.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
0xDEF 3y ago
There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark (my country). However please don't emulate our habit of flying to exotic destinations during our summer vacation. That would probably be the final nail in the coffin for the global climate.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  > There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark But they won’t. It’s culturally incompatible.
- mdhen 3y ago
  They won't. Flying to Thailand requires too much vacation time to make it worthwhile. And most Americans don't have much vacation.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Where to Invade Next? (2015)
rkagerer 3y ago
and everyone in general seems much more happier Apropos of nothing, they also have weed in coffee shops and a regulated industry of 'negotiable affection'.
- iknowSFR 3y ago
  While I can’t easily find the latter, I can find (what’s basically) weed beside my local coffee shop. And I’m in a state where it’s still illegal.
starttoaster 3y ago
> Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an absolute necessity to own a car This strikes me as disingenuous when taking into consideration the population density and just generally the size of land mass of the US, compared to the Netherlands or Denmark. You're comparing the US, which is, generally, much more broad open land with fewer people per square kilometer. Like, a lot fewer people. 523 people/km2 in the Netherlands compared to 37 people/km2 in the US. Like, yes, in a wide open stretch of land, people will spread out more, necessitating more personal and speedy forms of transportation. It's not a hellhole just because you're not packed into flats like a sardine and the same convenience store exists on every kilometer stretch of city road. Speaking as someone in the US who works from home and commonly bikes to the grocery store in my small town. The way the US is built allows for more of a sense of solitude (outside of the major cities.) This doesn't make it a hellscape just because it's not your way of living. Not by a long shot. Anyway, this is all at risk of sounding personally offended, which I am not; but the word "hellhole" seems a bit much, and far too broadly used for such a large piece of land with so many different subcultures within it.
- mcv 3y ago
  Americans don't live evenly spread out of their country. There are a lot of very dense parts along the cost, and even in the interior, that are just as dense and sometimes even denser than anything in Netherland. There's plenty of opportunity in the US to invest in other forms of transportation. The only thing that's missing is the political will, and that's because US politics has been bought by the oil industry, which benefits from inefficient transportation.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    > Americans don't live evenly spread out of their country I mentioned that in my comment as well. The "different subcultures" part, and the "outside of the major cities" bit. Of course large cities formed in areas all around the US. I'm talking about the majority of the land mass of the US, which is widely dispersed. > There's plenty of opportunity in the US to invest in other forms of transportation Inefficient transportation is necessitated by having 9 million square kilometers of land, where your friends, family, and jobs are spread across it. There's plenty of efficient public transportation inside the large cities. Admittedly outside of large cities, methods of efficient transportation are sparse. I used to take a train from my college in a small town in the midwest about a 4 hour ride up to Chicago, and then hop on another train to visit my family, which was another couple of hours on that train, and then the last 5-10 miles was usually via car or taxi, as busses outside of the major cities are few and far between. That 6+ hour journey, with an additional layover period between the two trains, was compared to a 2 hour drive via personal vehicle. So yeah, people out here buy cars. The idea that efficient transportation is completely stonewalled by politics strikes me as someone who hasn't themselves lived in a suburban or rural region of the US before. The kind of logistical problems that the US would have to face to make more efficient forms of transportation across the entire US are unlike the problems the Netherlands would have faced on a much, much smaller segment of the Earth.
Optimal_Persona 3y ago
I dunno, pedestrians in the US legally have the right of way and most motorists and the occasional altruistic bicyclist recognize that and act accordingly-ish. I was in Amsterdam for the first time this year and quickly recognized that folks on wheels (especially cyclists) don’t give a shit about pedestrians. Otherwise I totally I agree with your first sentence. :-)
nehal3m 3y ago
I'm European and my limited experience with the US (part personal experience, part YouTube documentaries from the likes of Not Just Bikes[1], Strong Towns[2], Climate Town[3] and Adam Something[4]) does indeed suggest that zoning laws and gigantic parking lots have a negative effect on life satisfaction. That said, you're not rallying anyone to the cause of improving that situation by calling the place a hellhole. Some empathy would go a long way to getting people to see the problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes [2] https://www.youtube.com/@strongtowns https://www.youtube.com/@strongtowns [3] https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateTown https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateTown [4] https://www.youtube.com/@AdamSomething https://www.youtube.com/@AdamSomething
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lockhouse 3y ago
There are plenty of US cities where car ownership is unnecessary. New York City and Washington, D.C. for example have very robust public transportation.
- reaktivo 3y ago
  Any of them you would recommend besides those two?
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    Personally, none of them. I was born in one of the most rural places imaginable. I can't stand big city life. I currently live in one of the top 10 largest cities in America for work and I cannot wait to have the opportunity to move back to the country.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
That's quite the ask. It's quite unreasonable and flippant to simply want the US to model Dutch transportation and infrastructure as if the US were a greenfield project. You can't ignore legacy and existing infrastructure, culture, habits, needs, etc. that we need to consider. From the point of view of a human life, urban planning and architecture are practically permanent: once a street grid or some buildings have been built and put in place, it is VERY difficult to change any of it. To see just how lasting this can be, consider the street grids in old Italian cities look at how the still follow the original Roman planning. The amphitheaters may be gone, but the streets that used to encircle them are still there, and the buildings that stand where the amphitheaters once stood even incorporate the original foundation work. Or look at smaller US cities like Hartford that were wrecked by highways. There are people working for the administration of these cities who know how many problems these things cause, but there are no realistic options available to make all but the smallest changes and improvements. The result of the Big Dig in Boston is desirable and welcome, but the cost was enormous (in part because of unnecessary losses, but good luck eliminating those). Maybe carpet bombing could liberate these cities from certain aspects of their legacy, but even then, the cost of rebuilding would be enormous (disregarding the evil of such a thing). This is why it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that cities take urban planning VERY seriously instead of letting developers do whatever they please. Urban planning is not a private matter. It is a matter of the common good and concerns not just the public today, but the public of the future. The US made a radical "bet" (under the heavy influence of the auto lobby) on cars, and this has been, in retrospect, a bad move in many ways. Something more balanced would have been better. Now, this doesn't mean we can do nothing. We can make conservative or incremental improvements. We can influence the direction infrastructure and development take. We just have to keep in mind that radical and sweeping changes are easy to demand, but difficult and even uncharitable to make in practice. Comparing Amsterdam to most of America is folly. The two do not afford the same opportunities for urban planning.

by xyst 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

0xDEF 3y ago

There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark (my country). However please don't emulate our habit of flying to exotic destinations during our summer vacation. That would probably be the final nail in the coffin for the global climate.

the_only_law 3y ago
> There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark But they won’t. It’s culturally incompatible.
mdhen 3y ago
They won't. Flying to Thailand requires too much vacation time to make it worthwhile. And most Americans don't have much vacation.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Where to Invade Next? (2015)

rkagerer 3y ago

and everyone in general seems much more happier Apropos of nothing, they also have weed in coffee shops and a regulated industry of 'negotiable affection'.

iknowSFR 3y ago
While I can’t easily find the latter, I can find (what’s basically) weed beside my local coffee shop. And I’m in a state where it’s still illegal.

starttoaster 3y ago

> Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an absolute necessity to own a car This strikes me as disingenuous when taking into consideration the population density and just generally the size of land mass of the US, compared to the Netherlands or Denmark. You're comparing the US, which is, generally, much more broad open land with fewer people per square kilometer. Like, a lot fewer people. 523 people/km2 in the Netherlands compared to 37 people/km2 in the US. Like, yes, in a wide open stretch of land, people will spread out more, necessitating more personal and speedy forms of transportation. It's not a hellhole just because you're not packed into flats like a sardine and the same convenience store exists on every kilometer stretch of city road. Speaking as someone in the US who works from home and commonly bikes to the grocery store in my small town. The way the US is built allows for more of a sense of solitude (outside of the major cities.) This doesn't make it a hellscape just because it's not your way of living. Not by a long shot. Anyway, this is all at risk of sounding personally offended, which I am not; but the word "hellhole" seems a bit much, and far too broadly used for such a large piece of land with so many different subcultures within it.

mcv 3y ago
Americans don't live evenly spread out of their country. There are a lot of very dense parts along the cost, and even in the interior, that are just as dense and sometimes even denser than anything in Netherland. There's plenty of opportunity in the US to invest in other forms of transportation. The only thing that's missing is the political will, and that's because US politics has been bought by the oil industry, which benefits from inefficient transportation.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  > Americans don't live evenly spread out of their country I mentioned that in my comment as well. The "different subcultures" part, and the "outside of the major cities" bit. Of course large cities formed in areas all around the US. I'm talking about the majority of the land mass of the US, which is widely dispersed. > There's plenty of opportunity in the US to invest in other forms of transportation Inefficient transportation is necessitated by having 9 million square kilometers of land, where your friends, family, and jobs are spread across it. There's plenty of efficient public transportation inside the large cities. Admittedly outside of large cities, methods of efficient transportation are sparse. I used to take a train from my college in a small town in the midwest about a 4 hour ride up to Chicago, and then hop on another train to visit my family, which was another couple of hours on that train, and then the last 5-10 miles was usually via car or taxi, as busses outside of the major cities are few and far between. That 6+ hour journey, with an additional layover period between the two trains, was compared to a 2 hour drive via personal vehicle. So yeah, people out here buy cars. The idea that efficient transportation is completely stonewalled by politics strikes me as someone who hasn't themselves lived in a suburban or rural region of the US before. The kind of logistical problems that the US would have to face to make more efficient forms of transportation across the entire US are unlike the problems the Netherlands would have faced on a much, much smaller segment of the Earth.

Optimal_Persona 3y ago

I dunno, pedestrians in the US legally have the right of way and most motorists and the occasional altruistic bicyclist recognize that and act accordingly-ish. I was in Amsterdam for the first time this year and quickly recognized that folks on wheels (especially cyclists) don’t give a shit about pedestrians. Otherwise I totally I agree with your first sentence. :-)

nehal3m 3y ago

I'm European and my limited experience with the US (part personal experience, part YouTube documentaries from the likes of Not Just Bikes[1], Strong Towns[2], Climate Town[3] and Adam Something[4]) does indeed suggest that zoning laws and gigantic parking lots have a negative effect on life satisfaction. That said, you're not rallying anyone to the cause of improving that situation by calling the place a hellhole. Some empathy would go a long way to getting people to see the problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes [2] https://www.youtube.com/@strongtowns https://www.youtube.com/@strongtowns [3] https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateTown https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateTown [4] https://www.youtube.com/@AdamSomething https://www.youtube.com/@AdamSomething

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lockhouse 3y ago

There are plenty of US cities where car ownership is unnecessary. New York City and Washington, D.C. for example have very robust public transportation.

reaktivo 3y ago
Any of them you would recommend besides those two?
- lockhouse 3y ago
  Personally, none of them. I was born in one of the most rural places imaginable. I can't stand big city life. I currently live in one of the top 10 largest cities in America for work and I cannot wait to have the opportunity to move back to the country.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

That's quite the ask. It's quite unreasonable and flippant to simply want the US to model Dutch transportation and infrastructure as if the US were a greenfield project. You can't ignore legacy and existing infrastructure, culture, habits, needs, etc. that we need to consider. From the point of view of a human life, urban planning and architecture are practically permanent: once a street grid or some buildings have been built and put in place, it is VERY difficult to change any of it. To see just how lasting this can be, consider the street grids in old Italian cities look at how the still follow the original Roman planning. The amphitheaters may be gone, but the streets that used to encircle them are still there, and the buildings that stand where the amphitheaters once stood even incorporate the original foundation work. Or look at smaller US cities like Hartford that were wrecked by highways. There are people working for the administration of these cities who know how many problems these things cause, but there are no realistic options available to make all but the smallest changes and improvements. The result of the Big Dig in Boston is desirable and welcome, but the cost was enormous (in part because of unnecessary losses, but good luck eliminating those). Maybe carpet bombing could liberate these cities from certain aspects of their legacy, but even then, the cost of rebuilding would be enormous (disregarding the evil of such a thing). This is why it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that cities take urban planning VERY seriously instead of letting developers do whatever they please. Urban planning is not a private matter. It is a matter of the common good and concerns not just the public today, but the public of the future. The US made a radical "bet" (under the heavy influence of the auto lobby) on cars, and this has been, in retrospect, a bad move in many ways. Something more balanced would have been better. Now, this doesn't mean we can do nothing. We can make conservative or incremental improvements. We can influence the direction infrastructure and development take. We just have to keep in mind that radical and sweeping changes are easy to demand, but difficult and even uncharitable to make in practice. Comparing Amsterdam to most of America is folly. The two do not afford the same opportunities for urban planning.