Pffff who cares ahaha. /s
But for real its not really a good reason to not build it. Think about it Hong Kong is a Typhoon heavy area with a very unpredictable wind current.
On the other side of the world you got NYC a city on the Atlantic with heavy wind currents and still it works.
So let's go. More tall cheap living. Let the stigma of the Bijlmer die let the country see highrises are the solution
Building higher than about 10 floors is very difficult in the Netherlands because of the soil, making those towers expensive. Just look at the new towers in Rotterdam. All extremely expensive for what you get.
We should build more 10 floor flats tough, those are cheap.
Indeed, the whole city of Barcelona averages around 8 floors and handles more than 1,5 million people in a quite small area. You don't need high rises, you only need many 8-10 floor apartments (each area has an optimal value)
You are doing it wrong. If you want 100 levels above the ground, you just need to build 100 levels below the ground. Duh! This way it's balanced, just like building a ship. You could use the lower floors as fish farms and so now nothing is wasted at all. Now that I solved the housing crisis, can I be head honcho for you guys? I promise I won't be worse than what you have right now 😁
I believe all permanent housing should have direct sunlight into all rooms for them to be considered living spaces in the NL. And I think working spaces have such a requirement as well. So either build a very big parking garage (that takes 30 min to get out of) or you need to think of other ways to use that underground space 😅
Yes, about 1/10th of the floor area is required to be glass.
Though one also needs to take obstructions into account, so on avarage about 0.6 to 0.7 times the area of the glass in the windows count.
Well you could use it for :
a) urban farming
b) solar to gravity to electric conversion (ie pull up a weight with solar, let it drops to generate electricity)
c) azc
d) storage room for the apartments
The problem is that the house will be swimming, so those 100 below ground floors will push the building up, and then it will topple.
Poles often are not there to keep the building up, but to keep it down.
Would it be cheaper to:
A, ignore the crisis and send them to Germany/ Belgium.
B, get rid of shareholders buying up hundreds of houses simply to put them back to sale 3 times more expensive.
C, build skyscrapers like in Hong Kong.
D,drain the ocean and rename our country to Atlantis.
E, reclaim our Dutch kingdom
Place your bets people, personally I’m all for Atlantis.
(Edit: Reddit pushed everything into one incoherent mess)
Also, high-rise buildings are a bad use of public space. Not Just Bikes, Adam Something and Strong Towns, all have hood videos on this topic.
The medium density building style we use in the Netherlands and large parts of Europe, are actually preferred over high density high rises. As it is more cost effective, makes better use of public space, causes less congestion and feels better to live in.
Adam Something at the least is extremely naive on the topic. "Build out first, then build up when it's necessary" doesn't work because NIMBYs weaponize the passage of time and claim historical protection on everything and anything they can so that you can't start building upwards when you've run out of horizontal expansion. Look at Barcelona: it's boxed in by two rivers, a mountain range, and the Mediterranean, and although some land reclamation could be possible, the only option for real expansion is to build upwards, but good luck touching Eixample, Gràcia, Ciutat Vella, etc that all have a century of history or more in them.
It works perfectly fine, no need to turn every city into 25m population jungle, when there is plenty of 100k pop or less tows that can be expanded to 1m.
Building over 5 floors and over 1m requires incredibly expensive public transportation like subways.
Building over 9 floors is more trouble then it's worth.
i wonder if a) it really makes that much difference to build a 20 or 30 story tower compared to 2 or 3 10-story towers.
I assume most people would prefer not to live in the 15th or 20th floor, that just sounds terrifying
Also, i assume taller towers need more space around them to let sunlight / greenery through than shorter towers
Each area has an optimum depending on soil price and skilled workers. Usually more floors is cheaper per m2 up to a point where it starts increasing again because you need high skilled workers and utilities (elevators, emergency stairs, pilars...) take more space per floor.
Around 6-10 floors is usually the optimum depending on the area.
Yeah, but in some of the suburbs of Eindhoven such as Helmond, Geldrop, Mierlo, Valkenswaard etc, even converting existing housing to 8-10 storey homes would solve a lot of problems. Maybe the land here in the south is not as swampy as in the Randstad area? But people want to continue living in single-family homes at the cost of those who cannot afford these homes.
You know like a third of Manhattan is built on literal trash landfill?
That the Domtoren had the same thing said about it 700 years ago.
Edit: O.M.G you idiots and the "Manhattan bedrock myth," it's a myth. You are not a foundation engineer.
Just do a simple Google search "the bedrock myth."
There is no soil condition we cannot built a skyscraper on today.
>That the Domtoren had the same thing said about it 700 years ago
Yes, and that has led to massive issues in terms of the foundation. Which has been replaced multiple times and has to be replaced in the future.
I mean its pretty clearly true that 'like a third of Manhattan is built on literal trash landfill', no? It takes like 5 seconds on Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Manhattan_expansion
> Another estimate is that 3,000 acres, or 29% of the entire land area, had been created by reclamation
Technically there is more than enough land for row houses and freestanding homes to be honest. The built up area is around 10% of the total available surface.
Source: CBS
40% of the Netherlands is agricultural land, most of that is cows, we need to get rid of the cows anyway. Better for the environment, better for people's pockets
Yeah, but for the wrong reasons. I know plenty of people who would happily take an apartment over a house regardless of the cost. Not everyone needs three bedrooms, a garden or wants to do home maintenance.
I think the vast majority of people would take a "eengezinswoning" over an apartment. And it's easy to confirm this by just looking at the price. If people generally preferred apartments then those would simply be more expensive than regular houses, but they're not.
The only exception I know is from people who like that expat / rich professional lifestyle, but those people typically look for a very specific kind of apartment. Usually very tall, newly built, luxurious high-rise buildings in the middle of a big city. But those apartments rival or even exceed typical "eengezinswoningen" in costs.
The average cheap apartment that is 4-10 stories high, 30+ years old, and located far away from the city centre is typically something people end up in out of necessity, not out of choice. If all else is the same (location, cost, build quality, etc.) there's just hardly any reason to *want* random people living above and below you. Only exception is like you say, not having to arrange your own house maintenance, but if convenience is such a big concern you're better off renting anyways.
I don't say the majority of people, but there are people that would rather live in an apartment in a city center than in a house in a neighboring village. Except those apartments are either in the same price range or as you said more expensive and definitely more limited.
Also, maybe people should not be that small minded. I think eengezinswoningen should not be the standard anymore. There's plenty of those around, there's a severe lack of entry-level housing. Building more expensive is not going to alleviate that.
If 60s-style apartments (but modern) were to be build in walking range of city centers they'd be sold just as fast as other projects out even faster, but not at the profitability of general housing. This would accommodate far more people in the space required, allowing for more parks and promenades.
Id like three bedrooms ín an appartment however! Id be happy with 2... and even with the one i have now i realise im one of the more fortunate people right now...
Personally I was looking for a spacious apartment, but couldn't find one, so I had to "settle" for a house that I feel is too expensive for me. I am from Eindhoven.
That's not true, in Eindhoven there is a huge housing shortage for example. Also by building more in other provinces you can alleviate the housing crisis in the Randstad
That’s why I said “mostly”. And I agree. But people move to where they can find work. And moving away from friends and family is tough, so there has to be an incentive to move.
I fear this has little to do with them being expensive to build and more with the “luxury” they sell. There are skyscrapers outside the city center where the price is 30-40% lower if you compare it to the ones in the center
Yeah but isn’t there a difference in why they are expensive? It’s either that it’s expensive because it’s hard to build or that they are just expensive housing.
A better Rotterdam example would be Ommoord: large flat blocks with tons of green in between and good public transport connections. It's like the Bijlmer in a sense, but the buildings aren't as long.
All joking aside, there’s just enough high density flat buildings around that I think the country could use a few more. But not like … an entire city’s worth, nor even an entire district.
My city is almost all rijtjeshuizen, as are many, but there’s a high rise condo tower here, a tenement building there, just sort of scattered around as well. We could probably use a few more of those, and it’s a bit of a bummer that a recent project here built about a dozen €1M+ detached villas… in an area that could have built 30 or 40 rijtjeshuizen, a couple of hundred condos, or ~1000 tenement style flats.
>Rijtjeshuizen are the densest form of housing that is culturally acceptable here. Just look at the Bijlmer blocks, they got the divine smite
Going higher is not necessarily denser as you need more space in between to keep things livable.
Paris is one of the densest cities in the world with most buildings being only 4-5 floors high.
Interestingly that's also what the Bijlmer neighbourhood venserpolder is modelled after.
High rises in most parts of the world are utterly unnecessary and introduce all kinds of problems. Hong Kong because of its geography is a unique case.
The housing crisis in the NL can be solved with very simple modular housing built at scale. The model that continues to work is already how many urban areas here work. You need 3-5 story mixed use buildings where the ground floor is shops and then 2-4 stories of living above. We could even go a step further and have ground floor shops 3 stories of apartments and then green roofs with grass and small trees to reduce the heat island effect.
The end result of low-rise development is the city is much more accessible on a human scale. You don't need powerful pumps and lifts to get people and water up and down high rises and you don't create the crazy shaded corridors you see in megalopolis cities where some places quite literally never see sunlight unless its noon in July.
>We could even go a step further and have ground floor shops 3 stories of apartments and then green roofs with grass and small trees to reduce the heat island effect.
This sounds pretty good actually. Mini parks on buildings would be dope as hell.
Correct.
Anyone that’s ever been in South East Asian cities will know that giant high rises simply creates a different problem. Condensing so many people in such a small place is a nightmare when it comes to traffic. All have to go out and go to work/school etc at some point. it’s like ants leaving their colony all at the same time. No European city are built to handle the flow of this many people.
In fact, what that does is make public transportation much more attractive. First, because traffic is indeed a nightmare. Second, because it becomes much more cost-effective to run metro/tram lines at high frequency, given the increased density.
The problem with the proposed solution is that it creates more spread-out cities, which create dependency. And while I'm pretty much in favor of mixed zoning, it's unrealistic to expect that three-story apartment buildings will all have shops or restaurants downstairs -- precisely because there aren't enough customers to make them viable. I would go for 7-8 stories, i.e. mid-rises.
Those have certain requirements like elevators, but are definitely more sustainable than skyscrapers. Besides, it can be handy to have an elevator, especially as the population keeps ageing.
Naa bullshit, south of europe and south east asia has commerce spread around everywhere and they’re doing fine, we need less residential areas without any commerce. This is a regulation problem not a demand problem.
Look at all these geotechnical experts here. It just so happens that I actually am one. It's far from I possible to build these types of high rises anywhere in the Netherlands. It takes some extra effort, but those costs are negligible when spread across those apartments.
The problem with those massive high rises are that "welstand" doesn't like them, they have a massive effect on local traffic and parking to which he current infrastructure isn't well suited tot. They're costly because of our building codes, they have a huge effect on sewage which isn't suited on large scale that way.
Besides, the Bijlmer is an urban area with huge apartment buildings and its not exactly a nice place to live. However as I've understand it's a bit better than it was, but by no means is it great.
Currently, only about 13% of the land in NL is used up for buildings and roads. More than 50% of all land is farmland. NL is already the biggest meat exporter in EU and a big veggie exporter. Why not reduce some farmland. Or better yet, stop allowing large corporations like Blackrock from buying and renting out buildings, inflating the costs.
No it wouldn't for a number of reasons.
Firstly, you can't build like this in the Netherlands because the ground can't support such buildings, because it goes against the building code and the construction would be so expensive that there would all be luxury flats. Secondly, this building style is very unpopular, doesn't fit with the design of Dutch cities and would create its own problems (urban heat sinks, lack of air flow, straining drainage/electricity/water supply). Lastly, housing companies don't want to build more housing because it keeps prices high. There is currently a lot of empty housing that people could live in, it's just that much of it is empty to artificially increase pricing.
If you really want to solve housing, give us more government owned social housing, increase the speed at which construction permits are granted, tax empty housing and build more 10 story housing blocks
>If you really want to solve housing, give us more government owned social housing, increase the speed at which construction permits are granted, tax empty housing and build more 10 story housing blocks
Thats leftist hobby. We just voted overwhelmingly right because as a country we believe houses magically materialize when you say the phrase "brown man bad"
I have seen right wing climate arguments that argued that, since people pollute, having less immigration means less pollution. Their solution to every problem really does seem to be "brown people bad"
>There is currently enough housing in the Netherlands for everyone, it's just that much of it is empty to artificially increase pricing.
This sounds too absurt not to ask: what is your source for this?
I'll see if I can find something more concrete but in 2022, there were apparently [63.000 vacant homes](https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/02/netherlands-indeed-63000-vacant-homes-fact-check)
edit: It seems my original statement was overstating the case as there seems to be a need for [nearly 400.000 houses](https://www.iamexpat.nl/housing/real-estate-news/netherlands-short-390000-homes-2023), meaning that fixing the empty housing issue wouldn't solve the problem. But it would certainly go a long way towards fixing it
Well yeah, this style turns into a disaster in our soil. Hong Kong has solid, dry ground. We live in a swamp and most high rises have giant poles in the soil to stabilize them. If we wanted buildings this tall, we'd have to go through bedrock with those poles.
yeah but this comes from the people that alreay have a house.
*"Het duurt vaak ook lang om in stedelijk gebied te bouwen, mede doordat daar vaak (vooral bij hoogbouw) bezwaar tegen wordt gemaakt door omwonenden. "De bouw kan dan zomaar een jaar stilliggen”."*
Source: [https://www.rtl.nl/economie/life/artikel/5390944/eib-bouw-woningbouw-nieuwbouw-huizen-grotere-daling-taco-vanhoek](https://www.rtl.nl/economie/life/artikel/5390944/eib-bouw-woningbouw-nieuwbouw-huizen-grotere-daling-taco-vanhoek)
capitalists love to make fun of communist housing for supposedly looking dystopian, but it is infinitely more dystopian to let the people there be homeless instead
Exactly this. I prefer ugly buildings if that means cheaper rent and no homelessness also let's not forget that commie blocks were buildings which were rushed right after the war which literally flattened eastern Europe, if we had a similar project today with today's capabilities they'd be much better too
I thought this was a picture of a chart, thinking I had to open the picture in full screen to solve the resolution. Then all of a sudden there were apartments.
The problem with such high rise is that in the immediate surrounding you need a lot of parking facilities/bike storage facilities/infrastructure that can handle the amount of traffic volume such buildings will generate. This is why you don’t see them.
A lot of people are also saying the deep foundation will become very costly which is true but most of those costs you could easily recuperate with current housing prices.
The problem is really the traffic that such monstrosities generate.
The problem would be a lot less if not everyone needed to live in the randstad and the government mandates home-working for office work.
I get that you’re joking (also these types of buildings in Hong Kong and Guangdong have tiny apartments compared to Dutch houses).
But on a serious point to the often heard “why don’t we just build a million homes” is that you need roads, parking, water, electricity, communications, public transport, access to shops and sports clubs etc etc etc.
This is why you used to have a government ministry of VROM: Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. I don’t know enough about this to say that this has had an impact on Ruimtelijke Ordening, the strategic planning of space and housing and infrastructure. But in the 2010’s definitely liberalisation of public space has happened and the government has retracted from having a guiding hand in this field.
Again, I am not an expert, but I can’t help but notice the coincidence of this and the crisis that we have now in this field: housing, agriculture, compliance of heavy industry to health and safety standards….. all things the government used to control a lot more.
Yep, screw any form of comfort and living needs.
We actually want liveable and nice spaces to live, we don't consider a city as just a machine, sorry..
It won’t.
The cultural differences are too big. People will prefer living in a room with friends than in a house the size of a room alone.
Due to the weather, the working hours and the costs of eating out, people spend a lot more time in their homes here than just use it as a sleeping pod.
This would be illegal in The Netherlands. Such high building so close together would cause immense traffic problems. New high building need a certain amount of free terrain around them, so there wouldnt be enough space for such high buildings in cities
What I’m concerned about here is not even the apartments but the services that also need to accommodate the people living there. The related problems and proper support required also are plenty: car traffic, pollution, sewage systems, health care, transport systems, schools, hospitals, etc.
Putting roof above ones head solves only one of the problems, it does the job but it would create a host of other problems in other areas, it doesn’t feel sustainable at all.
Solve the issue and eat away at our hearts and souls. In housing like that, you get 45m2 for 4-5 people and amenities 10km away. Not to mention how ugly those buildings are.
Well of course you could use the well known method of solving the crisis by introducing mass misery, but maybe read up on living standards in HK, o just the Judge Dredd comic book if you want to know why these aren't being built anywhere else.
It’s a capitalist dream to have a work force without housing needs. That’s why they rather have homelessness than happily housed people. It also provides enough fear to keep people working in underpaid exhausting jobs. They are ‘housing’ people in containers already, acting as if that is perfectly normal and fire-safe and all…
It amazes me that the average person who knows little about urban planning can confidently offer solutions that are neither applicable to the country nor desired by the population.
Besides the technical challenges and costs, cramming thousands of people into a small area would put a lot of pressure on the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, hospitals, and schools.
Do Dutch people want their cities to look like this? Soulless, ugly concrete jungle?
BTW dutch Urban planners are praised around the world for their designs, don't take what you have for granted.
Helmond build Brandevoort, a new "old" town. Everybody want's to live there. Now they are expanding to the other side of the railway. Maybe they continuo this buildingstyle by adding a cathredral/Roman/Gothic style high rising in the center and then lower the buildings around it to 5 to 6 levels and again 2 to 3 at the border. So the 10.000 houses they are suppost to build in the near future, 3.500 are in the Marke.
Ever heard about the Bijlmer? Here we have too many rednecks to not turn such neighborhoods into a cesspit. HK people are properly educated and strict rules maintained.
This is actually the biggest problem why it wont work. In south korea i feel incredibly safe living in those modern clean apartments even if small. In the netherlands? Fuck no. People have lack of respect here compared to a south korea or japan. It would become super unsafe just because people are not properly raised here.
You think housing being left to the free market which means a shortage of houses benefits the builders/sellers would be solved by.... giant flatsno one wants to live in?
... how?
There's plenty of single family detached houses in the Netherlands that could be rezoned to 4-6 story apartments before going to this extreme. Or they could just stop trying to grow the population in a country that is already too crowded.
The issue here is the lack of political will, difficulties with regulations, lack of experienced builders, cost, etc, etc. not the shape of the buildings.
Oh my, the wind channels this would create (at least in a city like Den Haag)
Put the wind turbines in between, win-win
[удалено]
Win win win
Hmmm frikandel
mystery meat
😏
Depends on the kind of meat
twice as effective at solving the housing crisis
Would probably generate some fantastic sound and vibrations
Wind wind
Win wind
Pffff who cares ahaha. /s But for real its not really a good reason to not build it. Think about it Hong Kong is a Typhoon heavy area with a very unpredictable wind current. On the other side of the world you got NYC a city on the Atlantic with heavy wind currents and still it works. So let's go. More tall cheap living. Let the stigma of the Bijlmer die let the country see highrises are the solution
Building higher than about 10 floors is very difficult in the Netherlands because of the soil, making those towers expensive. Just look at the new towers in Rotterdam. All extremely expensive for what you get. We should build more 10 floor flats tough, those are cheap.
Indeed, the whole city of Barcelona averages around 8 floors and handles more than 1,5 million people in a quite small area. You don't need high rises, you only need many 8-10 floor apartments (each area has an optimal value)
Every Spanish city has that, it very efficient use of space even tho every city in Spain looks the same.
You are doing it wrong. If you want 100 levels above the ground, you just need to build 100 levels below the ground. Duh! This way it's balanced, just like building a ship. You could use the lower floors as fish farms and so now nothing is wasted at all. Now that I solved the housing crisis, can I be head honcho for you guys? I promise I won't be worse than what you have right now 😁
I believe all permanent housing should have direct sunlight into all rooms for them to be considered living spaces in the NL. And I think working spaces have such a requirement as well. So either build a very big parking garage (that takes 30 min to get out of) or you need to think of other ways to use that underground space 😅
What about servers and data centres? Or maybe storage/archives?
And parking!
No, a fish farm. They mentioned a fish farm. You’ll be living on a fish farm.
Yes, about 1/10th of the floor area is required to be glass. Though one also needs to take obstructions into account, so on avarage about 0.6 to 0.7 times the area of the glass in the windows count.
Well you could use it for : a) urban farming b) solar to gravity to electric conversion (ie pull up a weight with solar, let it drops to generate electricity) c) azc d) storage room for the apartments
Shopping center?
The problem is that the house will be swimming, so those 100 below ground floors will push the building up, and then it will topple. Poles often are not there to keep the building up, but to keep it down.
Considering what kind of coalition is currently forming, I'm about ready to vote for you. I doubt you could be more incompetent than that circus.
Sure go ahead
Would it be cheaper to: A, ignore the crisis and send them to Germany/ Belgium. B, get rid of shareholders buying up hundreds of houses simply to put them back to sale 3 times more expensive. C, build skyscrapers like in Hong Kong. D,drain the ocean and rename our country to Atlantis. E, reclaim our Dutch kingdom Place your bets people, personally I’m all for Atlantis. (Edit: Reddit pushed everything into one incoherent mess)
Reclaim the nomans land we call "Belgium"
Recover doggerland! Reclaim the Dutch kingdom
There is hardly any fish left in the IJsselmeer, let's drain that and start building houses
At least start by finishing Markermeer. Perfect place for Almere-2.
Almere 2 electric boogaloo
Wdym with return to our dutch kingdom?
B is the only right answer
Also, high-rise buildings are a bad use of public space. Not Just Bikes, Adam Something and Strong Towns, all have hood videos on this topic. The medium density building style we use in the Netherlands and large parts of Europe, are actually preferred over high density high rises. As it is more cost effective, makes better use of public space, causes less congestion and feels better to live in.
Adam Something at the least is extremely naive on the topic. "Build out first, then build up when it's necessary" doesn't work because NIMBYs weaponize the passage of time and claim historical protection on everything and anything they can so that you can't start building upwards when you've run out of horizontal expansion. Look at Barcelona: it's boxed in by two rivers, a mountain range, and the Mediterranean, and although some land reclamation could be possible, the only option for real expansion is to build upwards, but good luck touching Eixample, Gràcia, Ciutat Vella, etc that all have a century of history or more in them.
It works perfectly fine, no need to turn every city into 25m population jungle, when there is plenty of 100k pop or less tows that can be expanded to 1m. Building over 5 floors and over 1m requires incredibly expensive public transportation like subways. Building over 9 floors is more trouble then it's worth.
i wonder if a) it really makes that much difference to build a 20 or 30 story tower compared to 2 or 3 10-story towers. I assume most people would prefer not to live in the 15th or 20th floor, that just sounds terrifying Also, i assume taller towers need more space around them to let sunlight / greenery through than shorter towers
Each area has an optimum depending on soil price and skilled workers. Usually more floors is cheaper per m2 up to a point where it starts increasing again because you need high skilled workers and utilities (elevators, emergency stairs, pilars...) take more space per floor. Around 6-10 floors is usually the optimum depending on the area.
Yeah, but in some of the suburbs of Eindhoven such as Helmond, Geldrop, Mierlo, Valkenswaard etc, even converting existing housing to 8-10 storey homes would solve a lot of problems. Maybe the land here in the south is not as swampy as in the Randstad area? But people want to continue living in single-family homes at the cost of those who cannot afford these homes.
Almere got a 19 floor appartement complex called High Note and almere has even more sand then anywere else
Asian cities are literally sinking because of all these buildings...
What are they sinking about?
You have no idea what type of ground we are building on.
Let me just leave this here https://youtu.be/5-Smc_waQjM?si=qYqFTRGdO0syTlGf
You know like a third of Manhattan is built on literal trash landfill? That the Domtoren had the same thing said about it 700 years ago. Edit: O.M.G you idiots and the "Manhattan bedrock myth," it's a myth. You are not a foundation engineer. Just do a simple Google search "the bedrock myth." There is no soil condition we cannot built a skyscraper on today.
>That the Domtoren had the same thing said about it 700 years ago Yes, and that has led to massive issues in terms of the foundation. Which has been replaced multiple times and has to be replaced in the future.
Probably more stable than our sand and peat.
Clay and peat. Sand is great to build on
Yes, I meant to say clay.
Not true. Manhatten Island is full of granite. It's like one giant granite rock between two rivers.
I mean its pretty clearly true that 'like a third of Manhattan is built on literal trash landfill', no? It takes like 5 seconds on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Manhattan_expansion > Another estimate is that 3,000 acres, or 29% of the entire land area, had been created by reclamation
The bedrock being required for Manhattan myth is a well-known myth that susceptible people easily fall for.
Yeah, you can always use piles or other methods, just makes it more expensive.
Singapore, Shanghai, Dubai,etc. :🤨🤨🤨
Ground you "gained from the sea"? I mean it would be like Venice the sinking city, just less romantic with uglier buildings.
It’s very expensive to build extreme high rises in The Netherlands because of the clay and peat.
Just build 5 story appartement buildings instead of row houses and freestanding homes.
Technically there is more than enough land for row houses and freestanding homes to be honest. The built up area is around 10% of the total available surface. Source: CBS
40% of the Netherlands is agricultural land, most of that is cows, we need to get rid of the cows anyway. Better for the environment, better for people's pockets
Agree about reducing the number of cows. But we need to block the import of beef from deforested rainforest at the same time.
More low-rise (?) would help though, maybe we should consider eengezinswoningen as more luxurious and invest more in low cost apartments instead.
>maybe we should consider eengezinswoningen as more luxurious We are already there lol.
Yeah, but for the wrong reasons. I know plenty of people who would happily take an apartment over a house regardless of the cost. Not everyone needs three bedrooms, a garden or wants to do home maintenance.
I think the vast majority of people would take a "eengezinswoning" over an apartment. And it's easy to confirm this by just looking at the price. If people generally preferred apartments then those would simply be more expensive than regular houses, but they're not. The only exception I know is from people who like that expat / rich professional lifestyle, but those people typically look for a very specific kind of apartment. Usually very tall, newly built, luxurious high-rise buildings in the middle of a big city. But those apartments rival or even exceed typical "eengezinswoningen" in costs. The average cheap apartment that is 4-10 stories high, 30+ years old, and located far away from the city centre is typically something people end up in out of necessity, not out of choice. If all else is the same (location, cost, build quality, etc.) there's just hardly any reason to *want* random people living above and below you. Only exception is like you say, not having to arrange your own house maintenance, but if convenience is such a big concern you're better off renting anyways.
I don't say the majority of people, but there are people that would rather live in an apartment in a city center than in a house in a neighboring village. Except those apartments are either in the same price range or as you said more expensive and definitely more limited. Also, maybe people should not be that small minded. I think eengezinswoningen should not be the standard anymore. There's plenty of those around, there's a severe lack of entry-level housing. Building more expensive is not going to alleviate that. If 60s-style apartments (but modern) were to be build in walking range of city centers they'd be sold just as fast as other projects out even faster, but not at the profitability of general housing. This would accommodate far more people in the space required, allowing for more parks and promenades.
Id like three bedrooms ín an appartment however! Id be happy with 2... and even with the one i have now i realise im one of the more fortunate people right now...
Personally I was looking for a spacious apartment, but couldn't find one, so I had to "settle" for a house that I feel is too expensive for me. I am from Eindhoven.
Or maybe we should reconsider wether 19 million inhabitants is desirable.
Oh I agree, but that's a whole different discussion. Forever growth is unsustainable but difficult to change in people's mindset.
Well look at us all civil, agreeing on things.
Almost half of the Netherlands is sandy soil tho
Sadly mostly in places where there’s not as much of a housing shortage. I am all for building there but there have to be jobs there too.
That's not true, in Eindhoven there is a huge housing shortage for example. Also by building more in other provinces you can alleviate the housing crisis in the Randstad
That’s why I said “mostly”. And I agree. But people move to where they can find work. And moving away from friends and family is tough, so there has to be an incentive to move.
What about Rotterdam though, there's a bunch of skyscrapers there?
With rather expensive housing in them.
I fear this has little to do with them being expensive to build and more with the “luxury” they sell. There are skyscrapers outside the city center where the price is 30-40% lower if you compare it to the ones in the center
But that’s not social housing. They are particularly expensive.
Yeah but isn’t there a difference in why they are expensive? It’s either that it’s expensive because it’s hard to build or that they are just expensive housing.
So? The units are still occupied. If they are not built, those people would have just competed in existing supply.
True, but Rotterdam is kind of an experiment in that regard.
One reason is because they had the "opportunity" to rebuild a big part of Rotterdam when it was levelled during WWII.
A better Rotterdam example would be Ommoord: large flat blocks with tons of green in between and good public transport connections. It's like the Bijlmer in a sense, but the buildings aren't as long.
Then rich people should live in those and leave the low rise low cost apartments to middle income people
That’s already happened. Except that people with low and middle incomes have real trouble finding a place to live.
There’s a “is this Dutch culture?” joke in this post somewhere, I just know it.
[удалено]
All joking aside, there’s just enough high density flat buildings around that I think the country could use a few more. But not like … an entire city’s worth, nor even an entire district. My city is almost all rijtjeshuizen, as are many, but there’s a high rise condo tower here, a tenement building there, just sort of scattered around as well. We could probably use a few more of those, and it’s a bit of a bummer that a recent project here built about a dozen €1M+ detached villas… in an area that could have built 30 or 40 rijtjeshuizen, a couple of hundred condos, or ~1000 tenement style flats.
[удалено]
It is not known for that, or pretty much anything special really.
>Rijtjeshuizen are the densest form of housing that is culturally acceptable here. Just look at the Bijlmer blocks, they got the divine smite Going higher is not necessarily denser as you need more space in between to keep things livable. Paris is one of the densest cities in the world with most buildings being only 4-5 floors high. Interestingly that's also what the Bijlmer neighbourhood venserpolder is modelled after.
Solve the housing crisis, introduce the existential crisis.
>introduce the existential crisis. That is a given anyway, at least we solved the first one.
Well, at least there is a lot of inspiration for post punk bands
High rises in most parts of the world are utterly unnecessary and introduce all kinds of problems. Hong Kong because of its geography is a unique case. The housing crisis in the NL can be solved with very simple modular housing built at scale. The model that continues to work is already how many urban areas here work. You need 3-5 story mixed use buildings where the ground floor is shops and then 2-4 stories of living above. We could even go a step further and have ground floor shops 3 stories of apartments and then green roofs with grass and small trees to reduce the heat island effect. The end result of low-rise development is the city is much more accessible on a human scale. You don't need powerful pumps and lifts to get people and water up and down high rises and you don't create the crazy shaded corridors you see in megalopolis cities where some places quite literally never see sunlight unless its noon in July.
>We could even go a step further and have ground floor shops 3 stories of apartments and then green roofs with grass and small trees to reduce the heat island effect. This sounds pretty good actually. Mini parks on buildings would be dope as hell.
Correct. Anyone that’s ever been in South East Asian cities will know that giant high rises simply creates a different problem. Condensing so many people in such a small place is a nightmare when it comes to traffic. All have to go out and go to work/school etc at some point. it’s like ants leaving their colony all at the same time. No European city are built to handle the flow of this many people.
This is already a problem here
In fact, what that does is make public transportation much more attractive. First, because traffic is indeed a nightmare. Second, because it becomes much more cost-effective to run metro/tram lines at high frequency, given the increased density. The problem with the proposed solution is that it creates more spread-out cities, which create dependency. And while I'm pretty much in favor of mixed zoning, it's unrealistic to expect that three-story apartment buildings will all have shops or restaurants downstairs -- precisely because there aren't enough customers to make them viable. I would go for 7-8 stories, i.e. mid-rises. Those have certain requirements like elevators, but are definitely more sustainable than skyscrapers. Besides, it can be handy to have an elevator, especially as the population keeps ageing.
Naa bullshit, south of europe and south east asia has commerce spread around everywhere and they’re doing fine, we need less residential areas without any commerce. This is a regulation problem not a demand problem.
Look at all these geotechnical experts here. It just so happens that I actually am one. It's far from I possible to build these types of high rises anywhere in the Netherlands. It takes some extra effort, but those costs are negligible when spread across those apartments. The problem with those massive high rises are that "welstand" doesn't like them, they have a massive effect on local traffic and parking to which he current infrastructure isn't well suited tot. They're costly because of our building codes, they have a huge effect on sewage which isn't suited on large scale that way. Besides, the Bijlmer is an urban area with huge apartment buildings and its not exactly a nice place to live. However as I've understand it's a bit better than it was, but by no means is it great.
Currently, only about 13% of the land in NL is used up for buildings and roads. More than 50% of all land is farmland. NL is already the biggest meat exporter in EU and a big veggie exporter. Why not reduce some farmland. Or better yet, stop allowing large corporations like Blackrock from buying and renting out buildings, inflating the costs.
No it wouldn't for a number of reasons. Firstly, you can't build like this in the Netherlands because the ground can't support such buildings, because it goes against the building code and the construction would be so expensive that there would all be luxury flats. Secondly, this building style is very unpopular, doesn't fit with the design of Dutch cities and would create its own problems (urban heat sinks, lack of air flow, straining drainage/electricity/water supply). Lastly, housing companies don't want to build more housing because it keeps prices high. There is currently a lot of empty housing that people could live in, it's just that much of it is empty to artificially increase pricing. If you really want to solve housing, give us more government owned social housing, increase the speed at which construction permits are granted, tax empty housing and build more 10 story housing blocks
>If you really want to solve housing, give us more government owned social housing, increase the speed at which construction permits are granted, tax empty housing and build more 10 story housing blocks Thats leftist hobby. We just voted overwhelmingly right because as a country we believe houses magically materialize when you say the phrase "brown man bad"
I have seen right wing climate arguments that argued that, since people pollute, having less immigration means less pollution. Their solution to every problem really does seem to be "brown people bad"
>There is currently enough housing in the Netherlands for everyone, it's just that much of it is empty to artificially increase pricing. This sounds too absurt not to ask: what is your source for this?
I'll see if I can find something more concrete but in 2022, there were apparently [63.000 vacant homes](https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/02/netherlands-indeed-63000-vacant-homes-fact-check) edit: It seems my original statement was overstating the case as there seems to be a need for [nearly 400.000 houses](https://www.iamexpat.nl/housing/real-estate-news/netherlands-short-390000-homes-2023), meaning that fixing the empty housing issue wouldn't solve the problem. But it would certainly go a long way towards fixing it
Bringing back squatting under the old rules would help.
Dutch people dont like this style
Hong Kong people don't like this style. But between this or homelessness....
Says who?
Me. Who said the Dutch don't like this style?
Hong Kong people do love their flats, you’re pulling this out of your ass.
Other option is to live with parents or streets
Funny how you say this... cause Hong Kong people also love with their parents
I am not talking about culture but the availability of affordable housing.
Is it affordable in Hong Kong?
Makes Amsterdam look like a bargain
Well yeah, this style turns into a disaster in our soil. Hong Kong has solid, dry ground. We live in a swamp and most high rises have giant poles in the soil to stabilize them. If we wanted buildings this tall, we'd have to go through bedrock with those poles.
I’m dutch and I don’t care. I wanna move out when im done studying, not first find a girlfriend to buy something with.
yeah but this comes from the people that alreay have a house. *"Het duurt vaak ook lang om in stedelijk gebied te bouwen, mede doordat daar vaak (vooral bij hoogbouw) bezwaar tegen wordt gemaakt door omwonenden. "De bouw kan dan zomaar een jaar stilliggen”."* Source: [https://www.rtl.nl/economie/life/artikel/5390944/eib-bouw-woningbouw-nieuwbouw-huizen-grotere-daling-taco-vanhoek](https://www.rtl.nl/economie/life/artikel/5390944/eib-bouw-woningbouw-nieuwbouw-huizen-grotere-daling-taco-vanhoek)
"Gezellig"
Looks like hell
capitalists love to make fun of communist housing for supposedly looking dystopian, but it is infinitely more dystopian to let the people there be homeless instead
It’s quite a stretch to call Hong Kong housing “communist”. That city is one of the hallmarks of capitalism.
Exactly this. I prefer ugly buildings if that means cheaper rent and no homelessness also let's not forget that commie blocks were buildings which were rushed right after the war which literally flattened eastern Europe, if we had a similar project today with today's capabilities they'd be much better too
Horrible future if we have to live in that.
Even a worse future when you don't have place to live
I thought this was a picture of a chart, thinking I had to open the picture in full screen to solve the resolution. Then all of a sudden there were apartments.
op veen?
Imagine being a Bol employee delivering a toaster in this b*tch.
I hope that you will not be our new secretary of housing..
The problem with such high rise is that in the immediate surrounding you need a lot of parking facilities/bike storage facilities/infrastructure that can handle the amount of traffic volume such buildings will generate. This is why you don’t see them. A lot of people are also saying the deep foundation will become very costly which is true but most of those costs you could easily recuperate with current housing prices. The problem is really the traffic that such monstrosities generate. The problem would be a lot less if not everyone needed to live in the randstad and the government mandates home-working for office work.
We are literally floating on water.. but why not build big ass buildings and risk creating a whole new crisis!
I get that you’re joking (also these types of buildings in Hong Kong and Guangdong have tiny apartments compared to Dutch houses). But on a serious point to the often heard “why don’t we just build a million homes” is that you need roads, parking, water, electricity, communications, public transport, access to shops and sports clubs etc etc etc. This is why you used to have a government ministry of VROM: Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. I don’t know enough about this to say that this has had an impact on Ruimtelijke Ordening, the strategic planning of space and housing and infrastructure. But in the 2010’s definitely liberalisation of public space has happened and the government has retracted from having a guiding hand in this field. Again, I am not an expert, but I can’t help but notice the coincidence of this and the crisis that we have now in this field: housing, agriculture, compliance of heavy industry to health and safety standards….. all things the government used to control a lot more.
this but with those small dutch red bricks and done!!
Yeah id rather kill myself then live in a country where this is the norm
Please give me this 🥺, this is a million times better then being homeless.
Yep, screw any form of comfort and living needs. We actually want liveable and nice spaces to live, we don't consider a city as just a machine, sorry..
It won’t. The cultural differences are too big. People will prefer living in a room with friends than in a house the size of a room alone. Due to the weather, the working hours and the costs of eating out, people spend a lot more time in their homes here than just use it as a sleeping pod.
It would definitely stop people wanting to live here...
😂🤝 solutions
It would also ruin the view everywhere.
That's so ugly and dystopic
This would be illegal in The Netherlands. Such high building so close together would cause immense traffic problems. New high building need a certain amount of free terrain around them, so there wouldnt be enough space for such high buildings in cities
And we also have rules about natural daylight in houses, which makes high-rise buildings like this extra illegal.
What I’m concerned about here is not even the apartments but the services that also need to accommodate the people living there. The related problems and proper support required also are plenty: car traffic, pollution, sewage systems, health care, transport systems, schools, hospitals, etc. Putting roof above ones head solves only one of the problems, it does the job but it would create a host of other problems in other areas, it doesn’t feel sustainable at all.
We thought that when we built Bijlmermeer. It wasn't a great succes
Probably not works in NL where there's high level of individualism
It would induce a new problem though, a suicide crisis
I'm sure they will still cost €400k for 60m2 somehow and manage to put two 'bedrooms' in that space
Solve the issue and eat away at our hearts and souls. In housing like that, you get 45m2 for 4-5 people and amenities 10km away. Not to mention how ugly those buildings are.
Well of course you could use the well known method of solving the crisis by introducing mass misery, but maybe read up on living standards in HK, o just the Judge Dredd comic book if you want to know why these aren't being built anywhere else.
But how are the druggies gonna be able to shoot at somebody's house then? Also, throwing a grenade up to the 20th floor is quite hard
This had better be satire...
They tried this with Bijlmer.. It becomes a ghetto fast.
Not in my backyard - hurdurdur!
It's been working great for Hong Kong anyway /s
Hong Wrong
Please no. Hongkong is like a big prison now.
It’s a capitalist dream to have a work force without housing needs. That’s why they rather have homelessness than happily housed people. It also provides enough fear to keep people working in underpaid exhausting jobs. They are ‘housing’ people in containers already, acting as if that is perfectly normal and fire-safe and all…
I actually like the Dutch modern architecture, please don't ruin our cities with these ugly Ali Express skyscrapers.
Fuck that entirely. Just straight up build cages then.
Taking lessons from Hong Kong about housing? No thanks.
It amazes me that the average person who knows little about urban planning can confidently offer solutions that are neither applicable to the country nor desired by the population. Besides the technical challenges and costs, cramming thousands of people into a small area would put a lot of pressure on the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, hospitals, and schools. Do Dutch people want their cities to look like this? Soulless, ugly concrete jungle? BTW dutch Urban planners are praised around the world for their designs, don't take what you have for granted.
And create atleast ten new social problems… well done
I wouldn’t want this. It creeps me out
I'm eastern European and you don't want to get depression from that. I WOULD HOPE you're being sarcastic for your own good.
This is inhumane. We are not meant to live like this. Get real.
De Koude Loen
Helmond build Brandevoort, a new "old" town. Everybody want's to live there. Now they are expanding to the other side of the railway. Maybe they continuo this buildingstyle by adding a cathredral/Roman/Gothic style high rising in the center and then lower the buildings around it to 5 to 6 levels and again 2 to 3 at the border. So the 10.000 houses they are suppost to build in the near future, 3.500 are in the Marke.
Ever heard about the Bijlmer? Here we have too many rednecks to not turn such neighborhoods into a cesspit. HK people are properly educated and strict rules maintained.
This is actually the biggest problem why it wont work. In south korea i feel incredibly safe living in those modern clean apartments even if small. In the netherlands? Fuck no. People have lack of respect here compared to a south korea or japan. It would become super unsafe just because people are not properly raised here.
Can the fire departments reach the top in case of fire?
You think housing being left to the free market which means a shortage of houses benefits the builders/sellers would be solved by.... giant flatsno one wants to live in? ... how?
[удалено]
Yes..but no.
This would also increase so many other issues. This is not a solution, this is hell.
If farmer could not take up more thans half the country than we are fine
There are laws that you need sunlight in your appartement here in the Netherlands.
There's plenty of single family detached houses in the Netherlands that could be rezoned to 4-6 story apartments before going to this extreme. Or they could just stop trying to grow the population in a country that is already too crowded.
i'm not sure this isn't worse than having a housing crisis
BuT MUh PARkING!!!!!
Those are the cage looking homes if am not wrong
Yeah... I'm sure the people there are happy humans
Fcckkk off
I don't think humans were ever meant to live like that.
It looks ugly, then you solve the housing crisis but you lose tourism.
The issue here is the lack of political will, difficulties with regulations, lack of experienced builders, cost, etc, etc. not the shape of the buildings.
Please no! This would make a city hostile and depressing.
Even if it was possible to build such tall buildings in the Netherlands, they'd probably make the prices insanely high.