Urban areas are not just walkable but walk-centric. They are built under the assumption that most people don't move faster than 4-5 km/h. Places that want to attract people must be close to each other in local centers, or people don't go to them.
Bicycles are more suburban than urban. Because they allow people to move flexibly at a relatively high speed, they encourage suburban structure, where things are spread out over a larger area. They are functionally similar to cars, but on a smaller scale.
You have clearly never been to any Dutch city. Bicycles are priority #1 even in the most crammed and tight spaces, and thus the distinction between "urban" and "suburban" becomes completely mangled. There's simply places with less space (Amsterdam) and places with a little more space (Almere). Does that make Almere a suburb? Possibly depending on your perspective, but there is nil relation to bicycles.
Now, of course, you could argue that that makes the Netherlands a relatively suburban place in general - the fact that it is one of the most densely populated countries on earth would disagree.
I live in Amsterdam and I think he has a point. Many major Dutch cities are old, so they don't really work as a counterexample. Looking at new developments, like Almere or even the outskirts of Amsterdam, it's clear that they don't have the same structure.
He was talking about a relationship between bicycles and urban/suburban areas. He’s suggesting that bicycles are a suburban phenomenon and that urban areas are focused on walking.
I don’t know about you but that seems untrue to me
I meant that in the other direction. The speed and flexibility of personal vehicles encourage suburban development in the city. Cars created the low-density suburban sprawl. Bicycles seem to encourage moderate-density mixed-use areas where the services are spread out all over the area.
That was for dense urban areas where people walk instead of using a bicycle. If most people are comfortable using bicycles, businesses have fewer reasons to concentrate on more expensive central areas, as people can reach them equally well a bit farther away. The more mobility people have on the average, the more mobility the society will expect from everyone.
Almere looks very similar to large parts of Florida, just with more town houses. Both look like master planned subdivisions with layouts that look interesting from the air interspersed with canals surrounding commercial areas.
I think it's fair to compare Almere to American suburbs. It's significantly more suburban than many other cities, and it arguably a suburb of Amsterdam. Many people living there work in Amsterdam. And much of Almere is fairly car-centric; build for cars coming from highways, down arterial roads, to local access roads to cul-de-sacs. (I've had family living in such a cul-de-sac for ages.)
But on top of that, there's bicycle paths and sidewalks everywhere. Cars are not your only option; just one of the options for leaving the city (there are also plenty of trains and buses). It's a well-designed suburb, rather than the bleak car-only sprawls of the US.
People may have different definitions for "urban" and "suburban". Regardless of the words used, there is a huge difference between a city designed for walking and a city designed for people using vehicles (cars, public transport, bicycles).
I would just like to say that “bicycle” is considered equivalent to “pedestrian” over here in NL, at least in the context of city planning. This allows for this additional “reach” of distance for many families without using a car or bus (which is important for children and teenagers), and it’s a big difference from e.g. the US way of approaching things.
It’s easy to see why it almost takes a completely different way of thinking, or “you got to see it for yourself”, before you can fully appreciate the little advantages it brings. The other way around is also true: I took me a while to understand the dependence that quite a few people have upon their car and/or public transport. Walking 10km is certainly a bit too much to ask, but common enough a distance to work or school, and very reasonable for the bicycle.
I'm originally from Finland. Our urban planning used to combine pedestrians and bicycles into "light traffic". That approach became obsolete 10-15 years ago, when it was widely realized that they are two different modes of transport that operate at different speeds and scales. The change has improved the bicycle infrastructure significantly, as the old approach didn't really see bicycling as a form of traffic that should be taken seriously.
Just move bicycles from being grouped with cars to being grouped with walking, and you're correct.
Dutch cities are designed for walking and bicycles. It helps that the bicycles are also designed for dutch cities. Upright, comfortable, a bit heavy and slow, and can be locked up for short times without needing to be locked to anything.
You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles. You can only make compromises between them. The slow Dutch bicycles are still 2.5x to 3x faster than the average pedestrian, which makes them convenient for distances most people would not consider walkable. If most people are comfortable with using bicycles over such distances, it encourages a more spread out urban structure.
People often use bicycles in cities because they are convenient and as fast as or faster than driving a car or using public transport. That is the reason why bicycles should be grouped with other vehicles and not with walking.
>You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles.
Your assertion shows that you have never visited a Dutch city.
Most Dutch cities were originally designed for walking (they are old, at least in the core), then (like most places) the car took over in the 30s - 70s, but since the 70s there's been a concerted effort to re-establish bicycle supremacy, along with strong public transport.
The outcome is that pretty much everyone (including the elderly) cycle everywhere because it's most convenient. And walk around perfectly fine once you've parked your bike. And if you need to go a bit further afield when you're done? Jump back on the bike.
The hybrid of public transport/bike/walking works incredibly well, everyone co-exists perfectly, without making any compromises. Obviously, this wouldn't happen without there having had been a concerted effort to build good multi-modal infrastructure nationwide for the last ~50 years, but it really pays off. The urban environment is really nothing like pretty much anywhere else.
It'd be more apt to group them on their own if anything, just as Dutch cities tend to have separate lanes for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. At least for The Netherlands, cyclists often feel like a protected group both pedestrians and drivers have to pay attention to.
The latter is more apparent in old roads and areas where there's no clear distinction between road and sidewalk, where cars are generally not allowed but bicycles are. Watching for cyclists feels like playing Frogger at times. Also cases where cyclists just ignore pedestrians and expect priority, when it is obvious pedestrians have priority (zebra crossings, traffic lights).
The above does illustrate why cities made for walking alone and cities made for walking and cycling would or should differ.
It is becoming very clear from your comments you have not seen the thing you're criticizing, bur rather argue from a paradigm you're familiar with. So I am going to join the chorus here and advise you to visit a dutch city, so you can yourself experience that there's more than one design paradigm that is valid, when it comes to urban planning.
> You can't design a city for both walking and bicycles.
It seems more appropriate to me to say: You can't optimise a city for both walking and bicycles. You can certainly design it for both (and even public transport and cars), with the necessary trade-offs.
I think you're meandering a bit from the topic. Manhattan is not similar at all to Almere. Manhattan is filled with multi-use zoning and multiple modes of transportation options on every block, while still being highly walkable. It's also not a great biking city.
But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".
Bicycles are more suburban than urban. Because they allow people to move flexibly at a relatively high speed, they encourage suburban structure, where things are spread out over a larger area. They are functionally similar to cars, but on a smaller scale.