[resolutebat]

FWIW, Chris Arnade of "Walking the World" fame has a few things to say about planning in the Netherlands:

There is almost a complete lack of anything that feels commercial mixing with anything that feels residential, beyond especially designated spaces, usually the very center of town.

These suburbs are not conventionally pretty, certainly not in the way downtown Amsterdam, Haarlem, or Leiden are. They are both monotonous and discordant, because the Dutch have perfected an architectural style of varied repetition. They will build twenty to fifty of the exact same weird thing, then next door build a hundred to two hundred of a very different weird thing.

While they can have very clashing outward appearances, they are united in a utilitarian practicality with a focus on providing almost everyone an elementary apartment.

The result of this is that there are two very different urban Netherlands — the older downtowns, with exquisite row homes along canals, medieval churches, cafe-heavy central squares that are frozen into place by historical preservation, and jammed with tourists, and then there are the outer rings of bizarre Lego-like perfunctory two-story apartment complexes, with few if any shops, beyond an Aldi, a hair saloon, a weed store, and maybe a bike-repair stand.

https://walkingtheworld.substack.com/p/walking-the-netherlan... (paywalled, alas)

[iknownothow]

I don't refute that things can be poorly designed in the Netherlands or in Europe in general. It is not a utopia. I'll give it a 6/10, okay on-average, can do better.

The thing is that US cities and suburbs are much worse. Let me quote the title of article

> Walking the Netherlands: From Amsterdam to The Hague

Is walking something you can do in the US except in some rare exceptions? There are suburbs in the US i.e. residential ONLY places where there aren't any side walks. And the closest grocery store may be 10-15 minutes away by car. Doesn't that feel suffocating to have a home but not be allowed to walk out on your own two feet?

[RestlessMind]

> Is walking something you can do in the US except in some rare exceptions?

Depends on where you live

> And the closest grocery store may be 10-15 minutes away by car.

For some people, that's a feature and not a bug. Anecdote - I had a colleague who used to commute from nearby hills because he wanted a house where he can't even see his neighbors.

> Doesn't that feel suffocating to have a home but not be allowed to walk out on your own two feet?

Again, different strokes for different folks. There should be different kind of options catering to different tastes. You want density and walkable cities? Go live in NYC or Boston. You want complete rural wilderness where you don't have to see another fellow human being if you don't want to? There is Alaska or mountain West. You want a big house with a yard in a community where everyone is of the same class and all the daily needs are met (grocery, gas, schools, parks), while being close to a major city to tap into urban amenities (eg. airport)? Go live in a generic suburbia.

[jjav]

> he wanted a house where he can't even see his neighbors

Sure, but that's not a suburb.

[seoulmetro]

If the closest grocery store (essential need) is 10-15 minutes by car, why would anyone walk? That's a long distance to drive for a grocery store and you are no doubt located in quite a low density place to begin with. Infrastructure to walk makes no sense when cars are that much better. In places where your local grocery store is 15 minutes away, congestion (the main drawback of cars) doesn't exist.

[cafard]

> Is walking something you can do in the US except in some rare exceptions?

Depends. Between kindergarten and eighth grade, I caught the school bus for part of sixth grade, otherwise walked or biked. Ninth grade on, I was where the schools were farther away, but I could walk to stores of various sorts.

I don't use a car much these days, though I get to work more by bus than by walking.

[LeChuck]

Eh. The word I would use to describe these suburbs is bland. They're not particularly ugly, but there's nothing interesting about them either.

This, though:

>there are two very different urban Netherlands the older downtowns [...] jammed with tourists, and then there are the outer rings of bizarre Lego-like perfunctory two-story apartment complexes, with few if any shops, beyond an Aldi, a hair saloon, a weed store, and maybe a bike-repair stand."

is taken to such an extreme I would almost call it a lie. Firstly, there are a lot of beautiful inner cities (and villages) not inundated by tourists. Leiden, which he mentions and is one of the most beautiful cities in the Netherlands, sees very little tourists (I've lived there for 10 years). Secondly, I do not recognize his description of the outer rings at all. They may very well exist as described, but I don't know them. These suburbs are bland an boring, sure, but there's plenty of variety in building-types to be found and there usually are pleny of shops within walking/biking distance.