>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.
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.
Almere is the Dutch equivalent of US suburbs I agree.
Obviously America is bloody BIG compared to the Netherlands and the distance between Almere and Amsterdam is smaller so you can use a bicycle. But the concept is the same: a place where middle class people with families live and commute to the city for work and entertainment.
Almere is a one off because Flevoland was created. We don't have the space for more Almeres- and thank God for that.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Yes, that's why I asked what a "walkable" city can provide in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive, that a city with Almere's infrastructure can't?
The way I see it, the city centre is perfectly walkable and thus can provide everything needed (the reasons it doesn't have more to do with Almere's history), while being accessible to everyone in the "suburbs" with practically zero of the downsides of cars (accidents, pollution, noise pollution, etc.). So I'm really curious what you think Almere cannot provide due to its being so bikable.
I don't know if there is a language barrier going on but I'm explicitly saying that Almere is not a walkable city (in most of the residents being able to rely on walking to complete most of their daily tasks). The majority of neighborhoods where people live are ~10 blocks wide stretches of identical row homes pretty spaced out around a town center without amenities in their neighborhood.
There is a lack of necessary dynamic spaces that change in character throughout the day as people flow in and out that you look for in great urban areas. There is no real mix of residential, commercial, park, and event space that create a dynamic living environment.
We can keep going back and forth but it seems like you don't really understand the value of having an entire city be walkable, not the the city center. Because just having a walkable center is not a great urban city; it's the definition of poor planning reminiscent of suburbs all over the world.
> I don't know if there is a language barrier going on but I'm explicitly saying that Almere is not a walkable city
It feels like it :P I'm not asking if Almere is walkable or not, but why you think that it is bad that it is not.
In other words:
> We can keep going back and forth but it seems like you don't really understand the value of having an entire city be walkable
Indeed, I'd like you to explain this to me, especially in the context of a city that is bikable. What does it mean for an environment to be "more dynamic"? As far as I can see, people switch between residential and commercial areas, parks, and event spaces all the time - it's just that they take the bike to do so.
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.
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.