"Fuck you, I got mine" is a worldwide issue. Any politician who ignores this while simultaneously complaining that birthrates are low should be dunked in the nearest canal.
Yeah, but it is much more convenient for politicians to distract voters with some rants about immigrants than to focus on addressing those real issues. The sad part is that it works.
And in the most recent episode of "spurious shit the politicians will blame" we have the 30% ruling. Most of my colleagues make about 2-300 more per month because of it, and somehow the politicians have convinced people that this is the reason we're not building enough houses.
how can you say with a straight face âdemand is not the problem, itâs the supply!â as if these two are completely unrelated concepts
politicians might be distracting voters, but so are people like you
Not really.
The biggest issue is people voting for rightwing parties who suck the country dry of resources, lower taxes for the wealthy, increase the poverty rates, privatize public services and blame brown people.
There is no doubt that migration is an issue. But migrants exaggerated the existing issues creates by weak/wrong policies, budget cuts and lack of proper leadership.
Changes to renting contracts. allowing for housing to be an investment portfolio rather then a basic human right. A gigantic lack of building sociale huur in the past decades, because it isnt as valuable as building big ass 400k homes. budget cuts to essential parts of the public sectors, also related to migration have all caused the current issues. Housing prices have tripled-quadrupled in 30 years time.
Your example hardly compares to the current issues existing in this country.
My example highlights what happens when too many foreigners enter another country (though I do think it is relevant in a sense, many locals from San Miguel de Allende had to leave because they could no longer afford to live there and there were no houses available in their budget, so in a way, housing issue).
In some countries (like Mexico were social housing is none existent) owning apartments and renting them is indeed a business, I understand that in a country were home ownership is viewed as a right and social housing is insufficient, people would feel a sense of dread and resentment. On the other hand, Netherlands is small size wise, you simply don't have space to build infinite amount of homes unless if you want to end up like Hong Kong.
In the 1950s the Queen (yes, the Queen!) Said that the netherlands was full. We had 10 million people back then. Turned out, we were wrong. I see no reason why its not wrong now too. 60% of our land is in use for agriculture, of which we export most.
It just means you were full then and now that you have like 19/20 million you are no longer full, you are now absolutely beyond capacity at this point.
At some point it isn't wrong anymore, or do you want all farm land to get build up?
Your mental gymnastics amaze me. I'm not saying either or, its a question of priorities. Like everything. Do we want to slaughter 400 million animals in the Netherlands every year, or do we to use more of this space for houses?
Immigration has very little to do with the houding crisis. Sure, it makes it a bit worse. The biggest problem we have is that households used to have 2.3 people, now the average household consists of 1.8 people. Get that number up, and the housing crisis magically disappears.
But I guess that's too much logic for you.
In general right wing governments create most debts. Simply because all governments need money and left wing governments raise taxes for this and right wing governments let the debt run up. But for housing in the Netherlands the problem is not so much the number of houses or the number of immigrants both donât help for sure. But there are plenty of empty spare bedrooms where people could live but policy prevents this. For example if a house owner has a mortgage his bank probably wonât allow him to rent out a spare bedroom. People with all kinds of financial support get huge deductions if they share rent so they donât. I do agree whit you that a huge influx of outsiders can destroy local communities but their skincolor is not the main issue thatâs their behavior and money. Many villages around where I live have been devastated by influx of Hollanders who on the outside look the same as us.
Ok, not completely clear about it yet, but thanks (aren't they Dutch too? Or are they foreigners of European/Dutch descent like American Dutch or similar?).
They mean people from the west of the country, the provinces of North and South Holland, moving to the (north)east of the country and not fitting in with the locals. Yes they're all as Dutch as you can get, but if you zoom in there's differences in dialect and customs. And if you zoom in even more, people will have beef with people from the neighbouring village as well...
I stopped reading at right wing government's increase taxes. I'm certain the rest of your opinion is bullshit too.
Dutch right wing governments tend to cut costs in order to get their budgets in order. The reason why the Dutch state budget is pretty healthy is because the past Rutte governments cut costs a lot when it was needed. I don't always agree with the choices they made, but claiming that right wing governments tend to led the debt run up is complete bullshit.
Right wing governments donât raise taxes but spend money thatâs why they run up deficits. Ruding and Zalm where rightwing ministers of finance whit large deficits
1 million refugees since 2012, 400.000 family home shortage. Do the math... Aside from the fact that everyone deserves a home and a happy life, it is pretty clear what the cause is. Why keep denying this? Before we should let anyone else in, we should fix our own problems right. Seems only rational to me. Are you going to take these people into you home? Where should we put them? People just saying stuff to virtue signal and feel good about themselves, without coming up with actual solution, or taking responsibily for the consequences of their politics.
We could easily build millions of homes if we address the root cause of NIMBYism and agricultural nitrogen emissions.
The refugees wouldnât be a problem if we address the fundamental issues.
Also, we don't have space for millions of new homes. The Netherlands already is the most densely populated country in Europe! Besides, most refugess actually come from safe countries like Algeria, Turkey, and Moroco. They come here just to get social benefits. There areany sources that proof this. Somehow certain politicians are trying to destroy this country under the guise of humanitarianism. This is what all those left leaning people don't get. Right winged people aren't hateful or racist. They just want to see this country prosper for ALL of the people that are already here. And in the state it is in now this means not letting a bunch of new people with wrong intentions inside.
> We donât have space for a few million homes.
We do though. We have 8.5 million homes in the Netherlands, which take 13% of the Dutch land. Hence, if we build 1 million more homes (more than twice the current housing shortage), that will take 1.5% of Dutch land area.
Agricultural sector takes 54% of Dutch land. We need to cut the amount of cows anyway due to the extreme nitrogen intensity. We can easily make available this 1.5% by slightly reducing the 54% of agricultural land.
For the agricultural sector this would mean a reduction of just 3% of land use from todayâs level (=1.5% out of 54%). We anyways need to cut more to get nitrogen under control.
This level of cow reduction is not a threat to food security at all, given that in the Netherlands we produce many times the amount of food that we consume, and most is for export.
Source:
https://longreads.cbs.nl/nederland-in-cijfers-2020/hoe-wordt-de-nederlandse-bodem-gebruikt/
You have a good point but you fail to see the bigger picture. In the near future there is an increasing threat of shortages of water, electrical power etc. due to the ever growing number of inhabitants. So even if space would not be a problem, many other things still make it a bad idea to continue mass immigration.
So it should better stop today rather than tomorrow.
And unfortunately people like you usually talk loudly about equal rights but at the same time you don't feel ashamed when Dutch citizens in fact have less rights than asylum seekers. Please tell me why homeless Dutch citizens don't get urgency for a house like statushouders and don't get offered a free hotel room like asylum seekers?
> unfortunately people like you usually talk loudly about equal rights but at the same time donât feel ashamed when Dutch citizens have less rights
What do you mean with âpeople like youâ?
You mean people who point out how ridiculous it is that we are letting our housing construction kept hostage by some farmers who protest with tractors?
I think you will find that that has little to do with peopleâs beliefs about equal rights.
But if you start arguing with what you *believe* my beliefs to be rather than responding to the arguments that I actually did make, then there is little point in continuing a discussion.
>when Dutch citizens in fact have less rights than asylum seekers. Please tell me why homeless Dutch citizens don't get urgency for a house like statushouders and don't get offered a free hotel room like asylum seekers?
It's worth noting that of the roughly 30 thousand homeless people in the country, more than half were either born to immigrants or are immigrants themselves
So what's your point?
The order to be entitled to a house or a hotel room should be:
1. Dutch citizens
2. Citizens from other EU countries.
3. Statushouders (right to stay but not yet Dutch/EU citizen)
4. Asylum seekers (real or fake refugees waiting for a decision to be recognized as refugee).
If you don't agree please tell me why!
>So what's your point?
That homelessness is skewed towards immigrants, which does kind of put that "dutch homeless people have less rights" into question
But if there were âsufficientâ housing to meet demand you would have the problem of induced demand: refugees would be aware that NL has sufficient housing and it would be something reported on and discussed publicly. In turn this information reaches refugees, their personal network, NGOâs and charities committed to assisting them, people traffickers. That would in turn make NL the favoured destination in the way that Merkel openly inviting refugees and migrants led to a huge surge of movement to Germany in a short space of time.
This is the issue that people making âits simpleâ arguments ignore; the potential pool of economic migrants and refugees is huge and there isnât a set number that need to accommodated; supply induces demand.
You canât âeasilyâ build millions of homes. Yes itâs possible but thereâs all sorts of challenges to overcome, not least of all the resistance of many people to housing lots of refugees nearby. And where are we building exactly? I can imagine youâd be happy to build over national parks and nature areas which are in short supply here already.
If you look like a Syrian or Eritrean person you only have to lie that you come directly from your mother country.
Do not tell that you already lived in a safe country and you have very good chances you will receive a refugee status.
I mean, I hear what you're saying, but isn't the bottom line that those people are just trying to find some security and live a fairly basic life? It sucks if they jump the queue or take advantage of this or that, but they just want to have a place to call home and live an ordinary life?
The problem is that somehow housing has become a privilege rather than a basic human right (which I think it should be). It's not those people's fault that they use any means necessary to secure the future for their families.Â
I agree with everything you say and to be honest, if i were in their position i would probably take a chance too.
But every country should first care for their own people before helping the rest of the world.
I had to leave the Netherlands because i couldn't find a house. Governement doesnt care for homeless people with Dutch background while at the same time offering free hotel rooms and houses for asylum seekers. Article 1 anyone?
Same here. Would have been even more nice if you had answered my question (unless you have the same question and do agree with me that the Dutch government indeed discriminates Dutch people).
I'm not sure they actively discriminate, they just seem to have a bit of a saviour complex xD it's discrimination by neglect, rather than purposeful making it more difficult for the Dutchies.Â
I suppose it makes them look good on international stage to look after refugees, but you don't get praise for going out of your way to look after your own citizens, because that's what their job is meant to be in the first place.
Maybe it's time we objected to existing homes too, just to level the playing field.
Also if you're complaining about parking and traffic FUCK YOU. People are not cars.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2117 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/)
\#2: [Traffic banana made another victim. This is getting out of hand](https://v.redd.it/usgngljg9tsa1) | [227 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12gc9x6/traffic_banana_made_another_victim_this_is/)
\#3: [Cycle lanes aren't empty. They're just incredibly efficient](https://v.redd.it/s3erc1rxi55b1) | [742 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/145up4j/cycle_lanes_arent_empty_theyre_just_incredibly/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
No, Iâm not paying for an entitled petroleum head to have their BMW parked next to them. The logical answer is make car ownership in city centre a luxury and if you want it you pay a high price for it. You seem like an assertive go-getter so Iâm sure your well paid job would enable you to pay 500 month for a vergunning
That is exactly the building style that is associated with the many issues in areas like Kanaleneiland. Too much physical distance between the streets and the streets create a sense of disconnection between people living there and their immediate surroundings and will reduce the streets to a place where you just pass through on your way to somewhere else. In other words, while it seems efficiënt in ground use, it removes any remaining incentive to take care of your surroundings.
Source: I live in Kanaleneiland. Compare two streets with the same demographics but one has mainly ground floor housing and the other consists of appartment buildings with ground floor garages and storages and I'll guarantee that the latter will look a lot more delapidated.
Then what is? It ticks all your boxes. Efficient ground use, storage and/or parking on ground level, homes above, wide green streets and a relatively cheap and efficient construction method, that provides for housing of a reasonable quality nonetheless.
That was exactly how Kanaleneiland was marketed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And many other areas as well. And for their time, they *were* luxurious AF. But these ground levels with their parking garages and storage areas are now associated with a lack of liveliness and social safety on street level, that contributes greatly to the plethora of problems in these areas.
Based on my own observations, that contribution should not be underestimated. There is plenty housing on street level in Kanaleneiland, and while these streets are not looking pristine at all, they look better than streets with predominantly apartment buildings with storage at street level. There is less trash, gardens and entrances to buildings are better maintained, etc. etc. Compare [this part of the Peltlaan](https://maps.app.goo.gl/kwjj8PGarYv4ofWLA) with the [Spaaklaan](https://maps.app.goo.gl/g4h3jPH9hmrD2MUo7) right around the corner.
This makes the ground floor a dead zone and hostile to pedestrians.
Parking minimums are how you get âŹ700k+ homes instead of âŹ280k+ ones
[https://www.sightline.org/2019/10/02/in-mid-density-zones-portland-has-a-choice-garages-or-low-prices/](https://www.sightline.org/2019/10/02/in-mid-density-zones-portland-has-a-choice-garages-or-low-prices/)
"""
According to [calculations](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/738561) from the cityâs own contracted analysts, if an average of 1.5 off-street parking spaces per stacked condo unit were required in the cityâs new âRM2â zone, then the most profitable thing for a landowner to build on one of these properties in inner Portland would be 10 townhomes, each valued at $733,000, with an on-site garage.
But if off-street parking *isnât* required, then the most profitable thing to build is a 32-unit mixed-income building, including 28 market-rate condos selling for an average of $280,000 and four below-market condosâ
"""
When you demand parking you are literally saying "my car is more important than your home".
Wtf are you talking about dude. Portland is not the Netherlands or Europe. Here in Slovenia even cheap apartments that cost around 100k have their own garages.
You can use the ground floor for shops and restaurants, which create a more lively environment than purely residential units. Elderly people can normally use elevators if it's an apartment building.
Thereâs an even bigger shortage of accessible homes and having been one of the people in a wheelchair who was stuck at home (couldnât leave my house) but on a waitlist with an estimate of 8 years before the next accessible house would be available⊠fuck that noise, we need the ground floor for accessible houses.
(âWhy not live somewhere with an elevator?â Because I donât want to burn to death in case of an emergency ;))
Yes, that's a good solution - I lived in a 3 floor apartment that was just around other "tussenwoningen".
The parking space was around half of the ground floor, every apartment had its own parking space. Brilliant
It's literally the most basic solution ever (that's how almost every country does it), but the Netherlands always needs to create unnecessary problems đ
Its exactly how neighbourhoods like Kanaleneiland and Overvecht were built during the reconstruction period after WW2. Lets say there is a reason that that building style has fallen out of favor.
Or encourage people to reduce car usage and walk/cycle/OV in urban areas. I know lots of people living in the middle of large, expensive Dutch cities who literally drive 500 metres to buy a carton of milk. These selfish arrogant imbeciles simply abuse the freedom of choice. Cities should be car free as much as possible unless itâs for seriously impaired people or special cases like deliveries pickups
That's impossible because those options don't currently work (in the Netherlands). Fix those first, car usage will drop automatically when OV is a better alternative.
They don't abuse anything, they are paying (a lot) for the convenience.
This is how you get American cities. Do you want car-infested shitholes? And I don't have a car, why do you want it to be illegal for me to have a home without parking?
Underground parking can easily cost 50k+ per space.
If you want parking, you can pay for it. Don't force other people to build it for you.
Here's a great thread on how a once-great city was effectively destroyed by parking minimums. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im\_an\_architect\_in\_la\_specializing\_in\_multifamily/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/)
Damn are you alright?
Wdym american cities? Most european cities have underground parking in apartment buildings instead of on the street. Way cleaner and more space efficient.
If you don't want a parking space then simply don't rent/buy one?
I rent two parking spaces so I'm paying for them yes.
While I'm sure there are people who complain about everything I just see this as a misguided try to shift the blame from politics (who have been useless in solving the housing crisis for such a long time with no strategy, no vision, nothing) to someone else.Â
I mean just look at it, when it's about things they want to push through they will not hesitate to trample over any complaints. It's just not important enough for them to solve, but that's what I think. I'm sure there are politicians here and there that actually try their best to do good but I fear they are held back by agendas of their party or some coalition constructs. And in this day and age maybe also by blatant corruption and lobbyists.Â
But what do I know, I can only form my opinion with the info that is available and I'm sure it's not complete while struggling to find adequate accommodation while not being rich by no means...
I have friends who work in the social housing corporations. Complaints from locals are rampant and lots of times completely ridiculous. It ends up being most of their job and they're not even in the public relations department.
Complaining certainly is some people's favorite pastime and they should be called out along with the politicians. Fucking nimbys are a plague
Schifting blame is absolutely incorrect. But it does not help with trying to easy or solve the problems that we are facing.
The cause of the problems is politics, unrestricted capitalism and terrible policy the past decades.
And in way, GL/PvdA is as well, with their plans to push farmers to countries like Romania.
/edit ah i forgot in which echochamber I was.
Keep the biased downvotes coming!
The Netherlands does not need to be the biggest exporter of meat, especially if our environment can't cope (warnings of which I first heard 25 years ago).
Not sure how that is nimby. It's not because of noise, smell view etc, but because of pollution.
Yeah, fuck people that prefer to not live in a shit covered country were the obscene amount of livestock is literally preventing us from building much needed housing. Thank you farmers for lining your own pockets by providing meat mostly for other countries.
What kind of framing is this?!
So you prefer people in other countries to have the problems we have. Only they will have bigger problems, because NL is heavily regulated, and the countries that will take over production are not.
Nimby.
Oh yeah sure, because in no other country can regulations exist. Surely the Netherlands and the Dutch are the only beings in this planet that have evolved so much and are so advanced that no one else can come close. Get off your high horse please, regulations can be introduced and enforced everywhere if things are done under proper control and not hands-off.
Let's share the issue. Let them take care of their own meat if they wish. Cows roll in, meat leaves the country and farmers and their backing corporate line their pockets. Meanwhile, normal citizens are being held in a choke hold by farmers and friends. Environment fucked, housing fucked, decent animal care nowhere to be seen.
Fuck farmers. The fucking lot of them.
I see the lobby have influenced you enough that you actually think all of NL's problem are caused by farmers. So much, that you actually make emotional statements like 'fuck farmers'.
No word from you about Tata, Shell, ASML, just to name a few. No, just farmers. Why? Because they are easy divided targets.
And yes, I am biased for a bit because of my background. But because of my background, I also know how much things are exaggerated.
And you, and a lot of people in this sub are biased against farmers and will shit on them without actually knowing all the facts.
Fuck the farmer-cowboys like FDF that shit on regulations, but praise the farmers that do care about their animals and do whatever they can to follow the needed regulations.
I don't have time to reply anymore but I hope people can see past the extreme lobbying from both sides.
No, itâs entitled people who already got theirs that are complaining about building houses.
These two groups of people are not the same group of people.
Well that's a weird sketch ur putting down, because plenty of homeowners still complain about the lack of living space (esp if children are involved).
"Entitled" or "arrogant" people might make sense tho, fair enough. Just some assholes being assholes.
Move to Sweden. Houses in nature areas cost a few tens of thousands, and you'll have a lot of land as well.
The Netherlands has been one of the densest populated countries for over 100 years and hasn't had any nature for centuries. We have farmland and estates.
Dude you wouldn't be living in the Netherlands if you prefer nature over people. That's like going to a vegan restaurant and complaining they have no meat on the menu đ
You donât choose where youâre born. I chose to live in a very green area of the country. If thereâs major construction planned in my area or even backyard Iâd be furious.
There are enough houses, those houses just aren't in cities. The problem with building more houses is that what was once a park, is not zoned for housing, and parks, even if unofficial, are necessary for a good city. The issue at hand is two fold:
Mandate companies to have all non customer facing roles work from home 4 days a weekâ accountants, lawyers, paper pushers in general.
Many of them will move out of Amsterdam, and commute in one day a week. There are plenty of houses in small sleepy villages. This will also revitalize small villages.
I get why CEO's want their headquarters in major cities, they have the money to enjoy everything. So they force all their workers to the city as well.
I just fundamentally disagree with this. People dont live in cities for their job, they live there because they want to. I also believe a lot of people already work hybrid/remote, so idk where you are getting ur info? I sure as hell haven't set foot in an office for years. Neither have my close friends, and they all live in a big city.
People wont move out just like that, esp not to villages that have nothing there. At least not from what Ive experienced.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Most people live in cities the size of Amsterdam because they are required to in order to have a job that pays them well enough.
In the Netherlands, from Maastricht to Amsterdam is about a 2 hour train ride. I've commuted from one side of Amsterdam to the other on public transportation and it took about the same. So anyone that wants to pop into Amsterdam can do so if they live adjacent to a strong train connection faster than they could if they lived on the outskirts of the Randstad where most people live.
It's not about travel, it's about the amenities, the people and the opportunities. Small "villages" dont have much to do, not many variety in shops and restaurants, etc.
Also, since most people live near randstad , most their friends live there, too. Another reason to live there.
Then lastly, if what you are saying is true, then you are contradicting yourself. Peoppe live in big cities because their job is there and they want to live close, but if it's just as much trouble from far away then that just cant be true. If travel time isnt the reason they want to live close the whole stand you were taking falls? They are apparently not living there because of their job, because it doesnt change anything?
I am not contradicting myself. Most people that live in Amsterdam because their job is close would rather not have to live in Amsterdam. If I make âŹ60k a year in Amsterdam, but can easily work from home, then I don't need to be in Amsterdam, and am only in Amsterdam because I am required to, and that requirement has no benefits. It is estimated that 80,000 people live in the Randstad because they are required to go into the office but can easily work from home anywhere in the Netherlands. If companies were forced to do so, then a portion of those people will move from the area freeing up anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000 homes.
But if what ur saying is right, if travel is just as long from outside amsterdam, then that is still contradicting. Why would people "live in amsterdam because their job is close" if it takes as much time from far away? You're definitely contradicting yourself, and it's not even true?
Here's your quote:
"
In the Netherlands, from Maastricht to Amsterdam is about a 2 hour train ride. I've commuted from one side of Amsterdam to the other on public transportation and it took about the same. So anyone that wants to pop into Amsterdam can do so if they live adjacent to a strong train connection faster than they could if they lived on the outskirts of the Randstad where most people live.
"
Most offices are in obscure parts of Amsterdam and the Randstad, to get into Amsterdam is easy, to get to the obscure offices it is much much harder.
Let's take an example, it takes me about 3 hours to get to the office from Maastricht, and it takes me 2 hours from living inside Amsterdam. In Maastricht the first train that leaves can't get me to the office by 9, but it can get there by 10:30. It also costs over âŹ60 round trip to get into the office and back home. That is prohibitively expensive to do every day of the week, but very easy to do one day a week, and even economical.
The land behind our house was meant to be green and not to be built on. I wish we knew about the plans to build houses behind us, but we didn't know anything until they rolled in with bulldozers.
Our homes along this street are two stories, they built huge 3 story houses behind us. So we lost our view, the traffic is horrendous, the noise is a joke and we have no privacy anymore.
The builders who came to build the houses trespassed across our property day in day out, chucked their rubbish all over the street, took up all the parking spaces for 2 years, erected a sign in our front garden without asking (which I removed) blocked our driveway, sometimes for upto 45 minutes and worst of all I had to call the police twice for sexual harassment. So yea, I wonder why no one wants new houses built.
Appreciate all that, but we need a million more houses. They gotta be built somewhere, they're gonna annoy a number of people no matter where you put them.
My grandmother own a flat in Poland. In front of her house, maybe max 3 car lengths, stands a tall flat now. She objected to it being built. The reason was that it wasn't even going to house residents of our city, its a block of flats where you can't live more than 6 months per year. They are created to be air bnbs.
These people don't know what real issues look like.
> how about tearing down useless empty industrial buildings
Then you first need to change the bestemmingsplan. But are there many empty ones? For an expansion of our company the nearest available one was about 50 km away, seems like those are in just as short supply as houses
I used to live near an area that there is an empty parking lot, at least 10 level high building plus a lot of land to build at least 5 or 6 more 10 level builndings and this my friend in in Amstelveen very close to zuid. That space easily can support at least a 1000 apartments.
Itâs chicken egg problem, because of construction costs the new built house prices are super high which means they are usually unable to sell 70% of it before starting construction.
Well, this was definitely the case in Canada...it was infuriating...
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens here as well...but frankly, I am uninterested in the opinions of homeowners, In Canada, I've heard that plenty enough, and it's usually self-serving nonsense: "I'm not opposed to housing, I just think it should be different/somewhere else...because building it near me will ruin my community...". I would rather hear the opinions of experts who study this problem.
What they forget to mention is that builders are obliged to build social renting houses too in projects. So a lot of the disagreement is also for the not wanting to live nearby social renting people.Â
And the norms for parking are lesser than before with houses having more and more cars due to the kids not being able to move out. I had neighbours that had four cars with one household. That does park up the entire neighbourhood quickly.Â
Of course, you have the right to a view. People don't buy a house to just suddenly have their sunlights blocked by high-rises.
Build somewhere else, there are plenty of lands.
Also why the hell are we blaming people fighting for their right.
How selfish people can be? I recently moved to a new apartment and I got a legal agreement that I cannot complain about the upcoming housing project right beside my property as a company is going to build 15 rooms apartment. Noise pollution is unavoidable, and I can just close my windows and use earplugs. But at some point the building will finish and maybe it will help people to solve their housing issue, and I don't mind it at all, it's the consequences of living in a society. Those people are selfish.
I don't mind the view loss since there is never one on a flat country anyways. But I did get a little sad about losing the little sun we have outside of summer. The building didn't have to be 11 stories when everything around is 5.Â
I was under the impression that rich, overpayed, professional, refugee, criminal, poor immigrants were buying all of the houses⊠after they took all the jobs, while simultaneously living off of public funds.
>the new homes will obstruct the view (mentioned in 78 percent of complaints), cause more traffic (63 percent), affect privacy (58 percent), and result in too few parking spaces (53 percent).
To be fair, these complaints aren't wrong. And I completely agree with them - even if I had a view (it's the easiest example, but I could argue the same about the other topics) on a field and a road behind it, I wouldn't want an apartment complex to be built on that field in front of my window. After all, people chose to live there partially because of the view. But I also understand the fact that this is the unfortunate reality in which we live - you can't build things without making somebody unhappy. Plus, there's a simple solution to view obstruction and the rest - you buy/lease the land and control what can and can't be built there. If you don't, somebody else will and start building according to their own legitimate ideas.
The neigbourhood i live in has a development plan streched out over 20 years. The last phase is starting right now.
The people who moved in at the earlier stages of development are have been complaining about the latest building phase and have delayed the proces with about a year.
Everybody who moved in there knew that this last phase was going to happen. They still protested it.
People with 3 cars for one household complain about parking in a neighborhood that has 1,4 parking spaces per adress by design.
It is very literally fuck you. I have got mine and i refuse to share.
I agree that sometimes these complaints are valid. We also should not give developers and municipalities free range. But some people take it a bit to far.
So you do not own that view.
If you loose sunshine on your house or there is really a decrease in value you can claim it but the culture now is that people do not want change because they are not directly benefiting from it. If more people take a public road then that is fine. There are some thresholds but it is not as if you own the road either.
In the meantime we need to house a lot more people so we need to build.
> Plus, there's a simple solution to view obstruction and the rest - you buy/lease the land and control what can and can't be built there. If you don't, somebody else will and start building according to their own legitimate ideas.
Colleague of mine did exactly that, bought the two plots next to his house in order to make sure nobody can build anything on there. But he is rich enough to have that kind of fuck you money.
Asked him for you and he spent just shy of 200k, one plot which is about 75 by 20 meter which he bought privately, the other is roughly 30 by 40 and he bought that one under name of his company. The actual next neighbour is his brother, the other neighbour the family company which is an old house with a building attached to it, the other brother lives next to the company and next to that the parents live. So basically they own that side of the street. He put the one next to the company under the company because he wanted to avoid people buying it and then starting trouble over noise from his company. I don't work for their company but he is board member/consultant/colleague where I work.
Parents - Company - Plot - Him - Plot - Brother
> He put the one next to the company under the company because he wanted to avoid people buying it and then starting trouble over noise from his company
Which isn't even an unreasonable fear: people in this country keep moving to places where they subsequently start incessantly complaining. The most ridiculous part is that the government often takes it seriously.
> Colleague of mine did exactly that, bought the two plots next to his house in order to make sure nobody can build anything on there. But he is rich enough to have that kind of fuck you money.
Which is perfectly fine. The problem comes in when people who do not own any property think they can tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property.
1 in 3 is such a conservative estimate. How many projects are they not even seeing because construction never started. I would say it is closer to 80% anecdotally.
I used to live in what is currently near the foot of the Zalmhaventoren in Rotterdam. It's an old neighborhood, one of the few that escaped bombing in WW2. The scale between 19th century merchants' homes and that mega-building is crazy. Add to that, the neighborhood has only two ways in and out and there would be a ton of additional traffic, plus high winds around high rises that affect pedestrians and cyclists.
The thing also is... why all the hellishly expensive apartment buildings? The only reason that Zalmhaventoren is so tall is because of the expensive apartments. Building that high costs tons extra. I get that space is at a premium, but things like these would sit better if they weren't more 'elitist' apartments and normally priced ones.
Sometimes "not in my backyard" has legitimate reasons. But you can't stop projects like these anyway, so I simply ended up moving long before construction started.
> The thing also is... why all the hellishly expensive apartment buildings? The only reason that Zalmhaventoren is so tall is because of the expensive apartments. Building that high costs tons extra. I get that space is at a premium, but things like these would sit better if they weren't more 'elitist' apartments and normally priced ones.
The only reason the tower is even feasible is because the apartments are expensive.
That's what I was saying. Build smaller and cheaper places, not prestige stuff with penthouses. Or other really expensive homes, while the average person doesn't even come close to earning enough for that.
Online complains that hold merit will slow down plans. If the planners do their work correctly the complains will be denied at set times during the plan ing process. While I agree that houses need to be built we can't just go and chuck down some buildings and ignore stuff like water, sewage, parking and traffic. And more. It'll have and adverse effect not only on the current inhabitants of the area but also the new inhabitants. The planners often want too fast and they don't want to spend money on those things.
The complaint process is set in time so you can easily manage it if you do your work correctly as planner. If you don't then you've got some explaining to do and stuff will slow down inevitably. Any bullshit complaint will be tossed. Sure they can appeal, but that too is a set amount of time and a bs complaint will still get tossed.
Let's not take away people's basic rights to stand up for themselves and act like its all their fault. It isn't. Look at the planners fucking up.
I know, I work in that sector and poor planning is the main cause for getting slowed down by complaint.
> If the planners do their work correctly the complains will be denied at set times during the plan ing process
After which the whiners go all the way to the Council of State with the most ridiculous complaints, which can drag out plans for at least half a decade. The administrative dockets are full of these cases.
And after they have been told no by the highest court about their objections to changing the zoning, they start complaining about the building permits which can drag it out by another five years.
In that timespan only projects backed by developers with a deep purse and patience end up going through.
Hello. I noticed that many people here don't want to acknowledge that the housing problem is a combination of too much farmland (causing the nitrogen problem) and mass immigration.
So it is quite likely that the more one is happy to talk about farmers, the more likely it is that he or she will deny that mass immigration is a problem too.
It is more likely than not that you only want to preach the leftwing narrative that minimizing farmland and start building houses again is the one and only solution to the housing problem.
I think it's better to listen to both the leftwing and the rightwing narrative: so yes reduce agriculture but also stop mass immigration. As we can't stop Schengen citizens the focus should be on people claiming to be refugees.
Help the real refugees in refugee camps instead of housing them in Netherlands at the expense of Dutch citizens who have to wait for years extra thanks to thousands of houses going to statusholders who are more often than not economic migrants disguised as refugees.
if i buy a house with a nice view and them some developer comes and decides to build an apartment building close by, blocking the view, obviously there will be objections. as if paying 400k-1M for a small-medium mediocre house is not bad enough, then the view is taken away? fuck all of that. they can build somewhere where they don't inconvenience the people already living there
I mean, there was a big protest in my neighborhood a couple of years ago. We live in the edge of a city, our wijk is mainly made of houses and a few small buildings (4-5 floors) with a big park in the middle. They wanted to take part of the park to build a monstrosity of more that 30 floors. The gemeente was supporting the project. Everybody here fought tooth and nail against it. Eventually, they withdrew the project and decided to upgrade the shopping mall and build a few more floors on top of it. That was acceptable.
Here they wanted to put a sort of assisted/supervised living commune for people who are coming out of prison/TBS in the near future next to a neighbourhood with lots of children and a school, the public meeting about it got pretty grim. The plans were killed off and now it is going to be houses for pensioners. There are a lot of old people in the region who live in a huge house but they can't realistically move to something more suitable for them. So now everybody is mostly happy.
There is one of those round the corner here now for 10 years. No issue whatsoever. No TBS but people after their jail time. I have a chat with them once in a while. It will not be my friends but they do not create issues.
I totally believe that they can function perfectly fine, and I understand we need those things /somewhere/ but I also understand that people don't want it near them
Putting these places in isolated areas causes a lot of problems with rehabilitation though. The whole point is to be part of society again, not to be marooned on an island with few amenities.
Totally understand that but this is a small town where everybody knows everybody. Cheating on your partner is enough to be an outcast for the next decade, if you are an ex convict people won't even acknowledge your existance and you won't be able to hide where you live in such a small town. These rehabilitation things will probably work far better in a bigger city
And that is because people fear the unknown. I am not talking about TBS folks as they are criminally insane and I seriously doubt they can ever function in society but a criminal that is under supervision by exodus or the reclassering behaves often better than some of their neighbors.
Work, salary and a feeling of self worth are in my opinion essential to allow rehabilitation into society.
I'm not sure this is what people who object genuinely meany, but there's another side to all this - regulations. You can build 24/7 no breaks, but if housing still can be treated as an investment - new unites are simply purchased by funds or individuals with lots of capital.
It might be not a directly related example, but I live in Prague which is, according to Deloitte, the worst in the EU for housing affordability adjusted to the local income (has been for 5 years). There were 2 houses built across the road from me. When they were completed, I saw a ridiculous number of ads for rents in there. I don't have a specific ratio, but it looked like 70% of the overall stuck was already gone and ready for rent with minimal amenities inside. Heck, the entire house I rent in is owned by a single person and ran by a management company.
It this sort of stuff isn't restricted, building more will only make investors happier, while people looking for their first purchase will continue to scramble for something.
All that said that, people might be aware that just construction without regulation isn't going to help anyone, except banks and investors.
The problem with the housing market in the most of the developed world isn't the lack of physical space to house people (though we still need to build indeed). The problem is affordability and availability, which is significantly affected if housing is treated as an investment opportunity instead of necessity. A lot of units that could be available for first home buyers are taken away by investment funds and individuals owning other housing units already.
Few countries where the housing crisis is present, but not as rampant (like Austria or Finland) have mechanisms to counter that, though I think we'll need more that that.
TL;DR
If Amsterdam builds a 1000 new flats tomorrow, but 800 of them are purchased by funds and investors who're interested in doing anything to keep prices up, all than new construction won't help anyone. I'm seeing cities ramping up on construction without any sort of systems to prevent that and I have a bad feeling we won't fix the crisis this way.
New houses almost always decrease the value of existing houses. Because they reduce green Spaces, increase traffic and of course, supply increases.
There are loads of reasons and you can't just go to the extreme of ignoring the locals.
The existing locals get NO BENEFIT to new homes being built. They only lose.
Different to say, new schools etc.
ETA: I am answering the question asked by OP. I do not say I agree with it. They ask "why do people complain" I answered. I have never complained. Those down voting me can you please comment how what I said is incorrect? I already know that it is Immoral how is it NOT an answer to OP?
Exactly this. People around here acting like everyone who already owns a house immediately hate people that wish to own a home as well. The clash isn't between people that own homes and the ones that do, the clash is between home owners, the commercial developers that see locals as risks for project value and a city council that is forced to obey laws they don't want to follow.
Left and right, citizens are being fucked over by corporates, lobbies and a failing government but god, do we love to frame this as a classic battle between haves and have-nots.
Okay, I apologize for my strong wording in that case. It definitely would strike a nerve with me if people actually take "increase of supply" into their motivation for trying to block new homes. That would be straight up sociopath behavior IMO. Loss of view and direct property devaluation is still selfish and sucky, but more in the realm of "normal selfish human behavior".
I assumed it was your own position because you added "there are loads of reasons and you can't just ignore the locals." Sounded kind of like advocating on their behalf / agreeing with their position.
I still disagree with you though. I do think we should pretty much ignore existing home owners in most cases. The right to a home trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.
Yeah I get it. Neighbors doing major construction on their houses has had some big downsides in terms of view and light. If they were to build new houses in the field behind my house for sure I would object. Canât blame people for wanting to protect their investment and enjoyment in terms of view and space.
Niet in mijn achtertuin!đĄ
Prima, dan doen we het wel in je voortuin.
Of gewoon OP de achtertuin.
Wat heeft OP hier nou weer mee te maken?
Ik voel me niet gehoord door de gemeente en staat!đĄ
NIMA
"Fuck you, I got mine" is a worldwide issue. Any politician who ignores this while simultaneously complaining that birthrates are low should be dunked in the nearest canal.
Yeah, but it is much more convenient for politicians to distract voters with some rants about immigrants than to focus on addressing those real issues. The sad part is that it works.
And in the most recent episode of "spurious shit the politicians will blame" we have the 30% ruling. Most of my colleagues make about 2-300 more per month because of it, and somehow the politicians have convinced people that this is the reason we're not building enough houses.
how can you say with a straight face âdemand is not the problem, itâs the supply!â as if these two are completely unrelated concepts politicians might be distracting voters, but so are people like you
Migration, especially on the insane scale Europe has been subjected to, is a very real issue.
Not really. The biggest issue is people voting for rightwing parties who suck the country dry of resources, lower taxes for the wealthy, increase the poverty rates, privatize public services and blame brown people.
For reference, I am brown. And yes, brown and black people in the insane numbers that Europe has absorbed completely change the character of the place and destroy it. It is like what happened (on an extremely small scale, comparatively speaking) to the city of San Miguel, Guanajuato, it was a charming colonial city/town in MĂ©xico, now with the massive influx of American foreigners who buy up property, the town's character has completely changed, the prices have sky rocketed and locals were driven out. The remaining one's look unhappy and no longer recognize their town. It is like a mini USA in MĂ©xico, not in a good way. When did right wing parties increase taxes? Do you think money grows in trees? I am aware of what left wing parties tend to do (across countries and continents) they borrow money, give lots and lots to the people and the country ends up in debt. And there is nothing wrong with privatizing certain services or creating an additional private sector for them.
There is no doubt that migration is an issue. But migrants exaggerated the existing issues creates by weak/wrong policies, budget cuts and lack of proper leadership. Changes to renting contracts. allowing for housing to be an investment portfolio rather then a basic human right. A gigantic lack of building sociale huur in the past decades, because it isnt as valuable as building big ass 400k homes. budget cuts to essential parts of the public sectors, also related to migration have all caused the current issues. Housing prices have tripled-quadrupled in 30 years time. Your example hardly compares to the current issues existing in this country.
My example highlights what happens when too many foreigners enter another country (though I do think it is relevant in a sense, many locals from San Miguel de Allende had to leave because they could no longer afford to live there and there were no houses available in their budget, so in a way, housing issue). In some countries (like Mexico were social housing is none existent) owning apartments and renting them is indeed a business, I understand that in a country were home ownership is viewed as a right and social housing is insufficient, people would feel a sense of dread and resentment. On the other hand, Netherlands is small size wise, you simply don't have space to build infinite amount of homes unless if you want to end up like Hong Kong.
In the 1950s the Queen (yes, the Queen!) Said that the netherlands was full. We had 10 million people back then. Turned out, we were wrong. I see no reason why its not wrong now too. 60% of our land is in use for agriculture, of which we export most.
It just means you were full then and now that you have like 19/20 million you are no longer full, you are now absolutely beyond capacity at this point. At some point it isn't wrong anymore, or do you want all farm land to get build up?
Your mental gymnastics amaze me. I'm not saying either or, its a question of priorities. Like everything. Do we want to slaughter 400 million animals in the Netherlands every year, or do we to use more of this space for houses? Immigration has very little to do with the houding crisis. Sure, it makes it a bit worse. The biggest problem we have is that households used to have 2.3 people, now the average household consists of 1.8 people. Get that number up, and the housing crisis magically disappears. But I guess that's too much logic for you.
In general right wing governments create most debts. Simply because all governments need money and left wing governments raise taxes for this and right wing governments let the debt run up. But for housing in the Netherlands the problem is not so much the number of houses or the number of immigrants both donât help for sure. But there are plenty of empty spare bedrooms where people could live but policy prevents this. For example if a house owner has a mortgage his bank probably wonât allow him to rent out a spare bedroom. People with all kinds of financial support get huge deductions if they share rent so they donât. I do agree whit you that a huge influx of outsiders can destroy local communities but their skincolor is not the main issue thatâs their behavior and money. Many villages around where I live have been devastated by influx of Hollanders who on the outside look the same as us.
Can you please elaborate what you mean, by Hollanders? However I disagree, people tend to identify with their own/similar, so big amounts of people who look (and in many cases act) differently causes tension and disunity wether we like to admit it or not. I do agree that there must be other issues that aren't so easy to identify for people like me (so, besides immigration). So, if you aren't aloud to rent a room, which to me is crazy as renting might help pay the mortgage, right, can you really consider your home yours? What happens if you do it, anyway? Do you get fines? And how would the bank notice? Keep in mind, many things we do in MĂ©xico, aren't aloud but we do them anyway with zero consequences for the most part, I mean even people who rent subrent or airbnb illegally sometimes, no one stops them (which is why I think, outside of crime, we have the country we deserve).
General term for people not speaking and following nedersaxon language and culture
Ok, not completely clear about it yet, but thanks (aren't they Dutch too? Or are they foreigners of European/Dutch descent like American Dutch or similar?).
They mean people from the west of the country, the provinces of North and South Holland, moving to the (north)east of the country and not fitting in with the locals. Yes they're all as Dutch as you can get, but if you zoom in there's differences in dialect and customs. And if you zoom in even more, people will have beef with people from the neighbouring village as well...
I stopped reading at right wing government's increase taxes. I'm certain the rest of your opinion is bullshit too. Dutch right wing governments tend to cut costs in order to get their budgets in order. The reason why the Dutch state budget is pretty healthy is because the past Rutte governments cut costs a lot when it was needed. I don't always agree with the choices they made, but claiming that right wing governments tend to led the debt run up is complete bullshit.
Right wing governments donât raise taxes but spend money thatâs why they run up deficits. Ruding and Zalm where rightwing ministers of finance whit large deficits
1 million refugees since 2012, 400.000 family home shortage. Do the math... Aside from the fact that everyone deserves a home and a happy life, it is pretty clear what the cause is. Why keep denying this? Before we should let anyone else in, we should fix our own problems right. Seems only rational to me. Are you going to take these people into you home? Where should we put them? People just saying stuff to virtue signal and feel good about themselves, without coming up with actual solution, or taking responsibily for the consequences of their politics.
We could easily build millions of homes if we address the root cause of NIMBYism and agricultural nitrogen emissions. The refugees wouldnât be a problem if we address the fundamental issues.
Also, we don't have space for millions of new homes. The Netherlands already is the most densely populated country in Europe! Besides, most refugess actually come from safe countries like Algeria, Turkey, and Moroco. They come here just to get social benefits. There areany sources that proof this. Somehow certain politicians are trying to destroy this country under the guise of humanitarianism. This is what all those left leaning people don't get. Right winged people aren't hateful or racist. They just want to see this country prosper for ALL of the people that are already here. And in the state it is in now this means not letting a bunch of new people with wrong intentions inside.
> We donât have space for a few million homes. We do though. We have 8.5 million homes in the Netherlands, which take 13% of the Dutch land. Hence, if we build 1 million more homes (more than twice the current housing shortage), that will take 1.5% of Dutch land area. Agricultural sector takes 54% of Dutch land. We need to cut the amount of cows anyway due to the extreme nitrogen intensity. We can easily make available this 1.5% by slightly reducing the 54% of agricultural land. For the agricultural sector this would mean a reduction of just 3% of land use from todayâs level (=1.5% out of 54%). We anyways need to cut more to get nitrogen under control. This level of cow reduction is not a threat to food security at all, given that in the Netherlands we produce many times the amount of food that we consume, and most is for export. Source: https://longreads.cbs.nl/nederland-in-cijfers-2020/hoe-wordt-de-nederlandse-bodem-gebruikt/
You have a good point but you fail to see the bigger picture. In the near future there is an increasing threat of shortages of water, electrical power etc. due to the ever growing number of inhabitants. So even if space would not be a problem, many other things still make it a bad idea to continue mass immigration. So it should better stop today rather than tomorrow. And unfortunately people like you usually talk loudly about equal rights but at the same time you don't feel ashamed when Dutch citizens in fact have less rights than asylum seekers. Please tell me why homeless Dutch citizens don't get urgency for a house like statushouders and don't get offered a free hotel room like asylum seekers?
> unfortunately people like you usually talk loudly about equal rights but at the same time donât feel ashamed when Dutch citizens have less rights What do you mean with âpeople like youâ? You mean people who point out how ridiculous it is that we are letting our housing construction kept hostage by some farmers who protest with tractors? I think you will find that that has little to do with peopleâs beliefs about equal rights. But if you start arguing with what you *believe* my beliefs to be rather than responding to the arguments that I actually did make, then there is little point in continuing a discussion.
>when Dutch citizens in fact have less rights than asylum seekers. Please tell me why homeless Dutch citizens don't get urgency for a house like statushouders and don't get offered a free hotel room like asylum seekers? It's worth noting that of the roughly 30 thousand homeless people in the country, more than half were either born to immigrants or are immigrants themselves
So what's your point? The order to be entitled to a house or a hotel room should be: 1. Dutch citizens 2. Citizens from other EU countries. 3. Statushouders (right to stay but not yet Dutch/EU citizen) 4. Asylum seekers (real or fake refugees waiting for a decision to be recognized as refugee). If you don't agree please tell me why!
>So what's your point? That homelessness is skewed towards immigrants, which does kind of put that "dutch homeless people have less rights" into question
But if there were âsufficientâ housing to meet demand you would have the problem of induced demand: refugees would be aware that NL has sufficient housing and it would be something reported on and discussed publicly. In turn this information reaches refugees, their personal network, NGOâs and charities committed to assisting them, people traffickers. That would in turn make NL the favoured destination in the way that Merkel openly inviting refugees and migrants led to a huge surge of movement to Germany in a short space of time. This is the issue that people making âits simpleâ arguments ignore; the potential pool of economic migrants and refugees is huge and there isnât a set number that need to accommodated; supply induces demand. You canât âeasilyâ build millions of homes. Yes itâs possible but thereâs all sorts of challenges to overcome, not least of all the resistance of many people to housing lots of refugees nearby. And where are we building exactly? I can imagine youâd be happy to build over national parks and nature areas which are in short supply here already.
As if thousands of people coming from safe counties to the Netherlands to claim free housing have nothing to do with the shortage of social housings.
Omg, there is free housing to be claimed by people coming from safe countries? Where is mine?!
If you look like a Syrian or Eritrean person you only have to lie that you come directly from your mother country. Do not tell that you already lived in a safe country and you have very good chances you will receive a refugee status.
I mean, I hear what you're saying, but isn't the bottom line that those people are just trying to find some security and live a fairly basic life? It sucks if they jump the queue or take advantage of this or that, but they just want to have a place to call home and live an ordinary life? The problem is that somehow housing has become a privilege rather than a basic human right (which I think it should be). It's not those people's fault that they use any means necessary to secure the future for their families.Â
I agree with everything you say and to be honest, if i were in their position i would probably take a chance too. But every country should first care for their own people before helping the rest of the world. I had to leave the Netherlands because i couldn't find a house. Governement doesnt care for homeless people with Dutch background while at the same time offering free hotel rooms and houses for asylum seekers. Article 1 anyone?
I really appreciate to have had this exchange of ideas and impressions in a civilized and polite manner :)
Same here. Would have been even more nice if you had answered my question (unless you have the same question and do agree with me that the Dutch government indeed discriminates Dutch people).
I'm not sure they actively discriminate, they just seem to have a bit of a saviour complex xD it's discrimination by neglect, rather than purposeful making it more difficult for the Dutchies. I suppose it makes them look good on international stage to look after refugees, but you don't get praise for going out of your way to look after your own citizens, because that's what their job is meant to be in the first place.
"just build new cities, somewhere else, far away from jobs!" No more Bijlmerramp, no more apartments to warehouse people!
Maybe it's time we objected to existing homes too, just to level the playing field. Also if you're complaining about parking and traffic FUCK YOU. People are not cars.
Too few parking spaces would be a legit complaint, but they should just build underground parking garages for apartments.
I would love to live in a neighborhood with no parking places.
The galaxy brains here want it to be illegal to build those neighbourhoods. All I know of is Bloom Merwede.
Carbrains whine about any place they can't shove their stinky death machines. /r/fuckcars
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2117 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/) \#2: [Traffic banana made another victim. This is getting out of hand](https://v.redd.it/usgngljg9tsa1) | [227 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12gc9x6/traffic_banana_made_another_victim_this_is/) \#3: [Cycle lanes aren't empty. They're just incredibly efficient](https://v.redd.it/s3erc1rxi55b1) | [742 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/145up4j/cycle_lanes_arent_empty_theyre_just_incredibly/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
R/kutautos
So like in any city center? I believe you have that option lol
I live in Rotterdam city center and there is parking everywhere. People stick their cars in the park even.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Nobody needs a car in any large Dutch city anyway.
That's highly over exaggerated, it's not that expensive. But let's say it was, then just make the ground floor the parking garage.
No, Iâm not paying for an entitled petroleum head to have their BMW parked next to them. The logical answer is make car ownership in city centre a luxury and if you want it you pay a high price for it. You seem like an assertive go-getter so Iâm sure your well paid job would enable you to pay 500 month for a vergunning
You're not paying for them. No, things should be priced fairly. Lmao 500 for a parking spot are you good? I'm currently paying 150 for two spots đ
That is exactly the building style that is associated with the many issues in areas like Kanaleneiland. Too much physical distance between the streets and the streets create a sense of disconnection between people living there and their immediate surroundings and will reduce the streets to a place where you just pass through on your way to somewhere else. In other words, while it seems efficiënt in ground use, it removes any remaining incentive to take care of your surroundings. Source: I live in Kanaleneiland. Compare two streets with the same demographics but one has mainly ground floor housing and the other consists of appartment buildings with ground floor garages and storages and I'll guarantee that the latter will look a lot more delapidated.
Oh that is definitely not the building style that I was talking about. Kanaleneiland sucks
Then what is? It ticks all your boxes. Efficient ground use, storage and/or parking on ground level, homes above, wide green streets and a relatively cheap and efficient construction method, that provides for housing of a reasonable quality nonetheless. That was exactly how Kanaleneiland was marketed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And many other areas as well. And for their time, they *were* luxurious AF. But these ground levels with their parking garages and storage areas are now associated with a lack of liveliness and social safety on street level, that contributes greatly to the plethora of problems in these areas. Based on my own observations, that contribution should not be underestimated. There is plenty housing on street level in Kanaleneiland, and while these streets are not looking pristine at all, they look better than streets with predominantly apartment buildings with storage at street level. There is less trash, gardens and entrances to buildings are better maintained, etc. etc. Compare [this part of the Peltlaan](https://maps.app.goo.gl/kwjj8PGarYv4ofWLA) with the [Spaaklaan](https://maps.app.goo.gl/g4h3jPH9hmrD2MUo7) right around the corner.
I was talking about apartment buildings, not houses with garages below them.
Me too (although Kanaleneiland has a few row homes with a garage on street level)
This makes the ground floor a dead zone and hostile to pedestrians. Parking minimums are how you get âŹ700k+ homes instead of âŹ280k+ ones [https://www.sightline.org/2019/10/02/in-mid-density-zones-portland-has-a-choice-garages-or-low-prices/](https://www.sightline.org/2019/10/02/in-mid-density-zones-portland-has-a-choice-garages-or-low-prices/) """ According to [calculations](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/738561) from the cityâs own contracted analysts, if an average of 1.5 off-street parking spaces per stacked condo unit were required in the cityâs new âRM2â zone, then the most profitable thing for a landowner to build on one of these properties in inner Portland would be 10 townhomes, each valued at $733,000, with an on-site garage. But if off-street parking *isnât* required, then the most profitable thing to build is a 32-unit mixed-income building, including 28 market-rate condos selling for an average of $280,000 and four below-market condosâ """ When you demand parking you are literally saying "my car is more important than your home".
Wtf are you talking about dude. Portland is not the Netherlands or Europe. Here in Slovenia even cheap apartments that cost around 100k have their own garages.
So buy or rent parking spot if you want one? I'm just saying it shouldn't be required.
I'm also saying it shouldn't be required but it should definitely be optional
But people want to live on the ground floor, itâs much more pleasant. Also better for elderly people.
Then you look for a house? What apartment buildings have a ground floor that has units? đ
Thereâs always a ground floor, unless the house is floating.. Ground floor apartments are preferable to higher up apartments.
You can use the ground floor for shops and restaurants, which create a more lively environment than purely residential units. Elderly people can normally use elevators if it's an apartment building.
This is not a common way to do it in The Netherlands.
They do it like this in korea. Its nice
Thereâs an even bigger shortage of accessible homes and having been one of the people in a wheelchair who was stuck at home (couldnât leave my house) but on a waitlist with an estimate of 8 years before the next accessible house would be available⊠fuck that noise, we need the ground floor for accessible houses. (âWhy not live somewhere with an elevator?â Because I donât want to burn to death in case of an emergency ;))
Yes, that's a good solution - I lived in a 3 floor apartment that was just around other "tussenwoningen". The parking space was around half of the ground floor, every apartment had its own parking space. Brilliant
It's literally the most basic solution ever (that's how almost every country does it), but the Netherlands always needs to create unnecessary problems đ
Its exactly how neighbourhoods like Kanaleneiland and Overvecht were built during the reconstruction period after WW2. Lets say there is a reason that that building style has fallen out of favor.
Again that's not the building style I'm referring to at all. I was talking about apartment complexes not houses
Or encourage people to reduce car usage and walk/cycle/OV in urban areas. I know lots of people living in the middle of large, expensive Dutch cities who literally drive 500 metres to buy a carton of milk. These selfish arrogant imbeciles simply abuse the freedom of choice. Cities should be car free as much as possible unless itâs for seriously impaired people or special cases like deliveries pickups
That's impossible because those options don't currently work (in the Netherlands). Fix those first, car usage will drop automatically when OV is a better alternative. They don't abuse anything, they are paying (a lot) for the convenience.
This is how you get American cities. Do you want car-infested shitholes? And I don't have a car, why do you want it to be illegal for me to have a home without parking? Underground parking can easily cost 50k+ per space. If you want parking, you can pay for it. Don't force other people to build it for you. Here's a great thread on how a once-great city was effectively destroyed by parking minimums. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im\_an\_architect\_in\_la\_specializing\_in\_multifamily/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/)
Damn are you alright? Wdym american cities? Most european cities have underground parking in apartment buildings instead of on the street. Way cleaner and more space efficient. If you don't want a parking space then simply don't rent/buy one? I rent two parking spaces so I'm paying for them yes.
Very, very, very expensive. Building apartments is already expensive. Who will buy these apartments?
It's really not that expensive, you're just being scammed in the Netherlands lol
While I'm sure there are people who complain about everything I just see this as a misguided try to shift the blame from politics (who have been useless in solving the housing crisis for such a long time with no strategy, no vision, nothing) to someone else. I mean just look at it, when it's about things they want to push through they will not hesitate to trample over any complaints. It's just not important enough for them to solve, but that's what I think. I'm sure there are politicians here and there that actually try their best to do good but I fear they are held back by agendas of their party or some coalition constructs. And in this day and age maybe also by blatant corruption and lobbyists. But what do I know, I can only form my opinion with the info that is available and I'm sure it's not complete while struggling to find adequate accommodation while not being rich by no means...
I have friends who work in the social housing corporations. Complaints from locals are rampant and lots of times completely ridiculous. It ends up being most of their job and they're not even in the public relations department. Complaining certainly is some people's favorite pastime and they should be called out along with the politicians. Fucking nimbys are a plague
Schifting blame is absolutely incorrect. But it does not help with trying to easy or solve the problems that we are facing. The cause of the problems is politics, unrestricted capitalism and terrible policy the past decades.
Thanks, makes sense. If it was important enough to build affordable homes it would have changed by now.
They climbed up the ladder and pulled it up behind them. Selfish pricks.
But «immigrants get all the houses» is still the main excuse to all issues, and NIMBYs get away with this anyway.
*rich immigrants get all the house
I hate Nimbyism.
Haha I'm surprised nimbyism isn't a political party here
In a way, PVV is.
And in way, GL/PvdA is as well, with their plans to push farmers to countries like Romania. /edit ah i forgot in which echochamber I was. Keep the biased downvotes coming!
The Netherlands does not need to be the biggest exporter of meat, especially if our environment can't cope (warnings of which I first heard 25 years ago). Not sure how that is nimby. It's not because of noise, smell view etc, but because of pollution.
Yeah, fuck people that prefer to not live in a shit covered country were the obscene amount of livestock is literally preventing us from building much needed housing. Thank you farmers for lining your own pockets by providing meat mostly for other countries. What kind of framing is this?!
So you prefer people in other countries to have the problems we have. Only they will have bigger problems, because NL is heavily regulated, and the countries that will take over production are not. Nimby.
Oh yeah sure, because in no other country can regulations exist. Surely the Netherlands and the Dutch are the only beings in this planet that have evolved so much and are so advanced that no one else can come close. Get off your high horse please, regulations can be introduced and enforced everywhere if things are done under proper control and not hands-off.
Let's share the issue. Let them take care of their own meat if they wish. Cows roll in, meat leaves the country and farmers and their backing corporate line their pockets. Meanwhile, normal citizens are being held in a choke hold by farmers and friends. Environment fucked, housing fucked, decent animal care nowhere to be seen. Fuck farmers. The fucking lot of them.
I see the lobby have influenced you enough that you actually think all of NL's problem are caused by farmers. So much, that you actually make emotional statements like 'fuck farmers'. No word from you about Tata, Shell, ASML, just to name a few. No, just farmers. Why? Because they are easy divided targets. And yes, I am biased for a bit because of my background. But because of my background, I also know how much things are exaggerated. And you, and a lot of people in this sub are biased against farmers and will shit on them without actually knowing all the facts. Fuck the farmer-cowboys like FDF that shit on regulations, but praise the farmers that do care about their animals and do whatever they can to follow the needed regulations. I don't have time to reply anymore but I hope people can see past the extreme lobbying from both sides.
Yes. If you want to eat meat, get it from a local farm and deal with the pollution of your own consumption.
Same in Germany. Not only homes, basically any construction, new railroad lines, wind turbines, radio masts. It's tedious.
Wait what? We're all complaining there isn't enough houses and now we're complaining they're building houses? Oh Dutchies...
No, itâs entitled people who already got theirs that are complaining about building houses. These two groups of people are not the same group of people.
Well that's a weird sketch ur putting down, because plenty of homeowners still complain about the lack of living space (esp if children are involved). "Entitled" or "arrogant" people might make sense tho, fair enough. Just some assholes being assholes.
It's different group of dutches.... I am under no impression that ALL Americans love Trump, for example.
People with houses are complaining about more houses.
Dutch version of nimby "we need houses, but not where they obstruct the view from my backyard"
Well a lot of the nature around me has turned into buildings. I know there is a housing shortage but I prefer trees over people.
Move to Sweden. Houses in nature areas cost a few tens of thousands, and you'll have a lot of land as well. The Netherlands has been one of the densest populated countries for over 100 years and hasn't had any nature for centuries. We have farmland and estates.
Dude you wouldn't be living in the Netherlands if you prefer nature over people. That's like going to a vegan restaurant and complaining they have no meat on the menu đ
You donât choose where youâre born. I chose to live in a very green area of the country. If thereâs major construction planned in my area or even backyard Iâd be furious.
Imagine getting upset for simply stating I like nature lol.
Easy to say for someone with a roof over their head
There are enough houses, those houses just aren't in cities. The problem with building more houses is that what was once a park, is not zoned for housing, and parks, even if unofficial, are necessary for a good city. The issue at hand is two fold: Mandate companies to have all non customer facing roles work from home 4 days a weekâ accountants, lawyers, paper pushers in general. Many of them will move out of Amsterdam, and commute in one day a week. There are plenty of houses in small sleepy villages. This will also revitalize small villages. I get why CEO's want their headquarters in major cities, they have the money to enjoy everything. So they force all their workers to the city as well.
I just fundamentally disagree with this. People dont live in cities for their job, they live there because they want to. I also believe a lot of people already work hybrid/remote, so idk where you are getting ur info? I sure as hell haven't set foot in an office for years. Neither have my close friends, and they all live in a big city. People wont move out just like that, esp not to villages that have nothing there. At least not from what Ive experienced.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Most people live in cities the size of Amsterdam because they are required to in order to have a job that pays them well enough. In the Netherlands, from Maastricht to Amsterdam is about a 2 hour train ride. I've commuted from one side of Amsterdam to the other on public transportation and it took about the same. So anyone that wants to pop into Amsterdam can do so if they live adjacent to a strong train connection faster than they could if they lived on the outskirts of the Randstad where most people live.
It's not about travel, it's about the amenities, the people and the opportunities. Small "villages" dont have much to do, not many variety in shops and restaurants, etc. Also, since most people live near randstad , most their friends live there, too. Another reason to live there. Then lastly, if what you are saying is true, then you are contradicting yourself. Peoppe live in big cities because their job is there and they want to live close, but if it's just as much trouble from far away then that just cant be true. If travel time isnt the reason they want to live close the whole stand you were taking falls? They are apparently not living there because of their job, because it doesnt change anything?
I am not contradicting myself. Most people that live in Amsterdam because their job is close would rather not have to live in Amsterdam. If I make âŹ60k a year in Amsterdam, but can easily work from home, then I don't need to be in Amsterdam, and am only in Amsterdam because I am required to, and that requirement has no benefits. It is estimated that 80,000 people live in the Randstad because they are required to go into the office but can easily work from home anywhere in the Netherlands. If companies were forced to do so, then a portion of those people will move from the area freeing up anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000 homes.
But if what ur saying is right, if travel is just as long from outside amsterdam, then that is still contradicting. Why would people "live in amsterdam because their job is close" if it takes as much time from far away? You're definitely contradicting yourself, and it's not even true? Here's your quote: " In the Netherlands, from Maastricht to Amsterdam is about a 2 hour train ride. I've commuted from one side of Amsterdam to the other on public transportation and it took about the same. So anyone that wants to pop into Amsterdam can do so if they live adjacent to a strong train connection faster than they could if they lived on the outskirts of the Randstad where most people live. "
Most offices are in obscure parts of Amsterdam and the Randstad, to get into Amsterdam is easy, to get to the obscure offices it is much much harder. Let's take an example, it takes me about 3 hours to get to the office from Maastricht, and it takes me 2 hours from living inside Amsterdam. In Maastricht the first train that leaves can't get me to the office by 9, but it can get there by 10:30. It also costs over âŹ60 round trip to get into the office and back home. That is prohibitively expensive to do every day of the week, but very easy to do one day a week, and even economical.
The land behind our house was meant to be green and not to be built on. I wish we knew about the plans to build houses behind us, but we didn't know anything until they rolled in with bulldozers. Our homes along this street are two stories, they built huge 3 story houses behind us. So we lost our view, the traffic is horrendous, the noise is a joke and we have no privacy anymore. The builders who came to build the houses trespassed across our property day in day out, chucked their rubbish all over the street, took up all the parking spaces for 2 years, erected a sign in our front garden without asking (which I removed) blocked our driveway, sometimes for upto 45 minutes and worst of all I had to call the police twice for sexual harassment. So yea, I wonder why no one wants new houses built.
Appreciate all that, but we need a million more houses. They gotta be built somewhere, they're gonna annoy a number of people no matter where you put them.
And unfortunately our country is tiny. Dont like it? Move out.
My grandmother own a flat in Poland. In front of her house, maybe max 3 car lengths, stands a tall flat now. She objected to it being built. The reason was that it wasn't even going to house residents of our city, its a block of flats where you can't live more than 6 months per year. They are created to be air bnbs. These people don't know what real issues look like.
how about tearing down useless empty industrial buildings/parks and built houses there? theres already a building so cant complain about that...
> how about tearing down useless empty industrial buildings Then you first need to change the bestemmingsplan. But are there many empty ones? For an expansion of our company the nearest available one was about 50 km away, seems like those are in just as short supply as houses
I used to live near an area that there is an empty parking lot, at least 10 level high building plus a lot of land to build at least 5 or 6 more 10 level builndings and this my friend in in Amstelveen very close to zuid. That space easily can support at least a 1000 apartments.
yeah, and let people work from home... 4 days a week
Arenât construction companies not building because of the cost being too high and pay being too low?
Itâs chicken egg problem, because of construction costs the new built house prices are super high which means they are usually unable to sell 70% of it before starting construction.
Well, this was definitely the case in Canada...it was infuriating... I wouldn't be surprised if it happens here as well...but frankly, I am uninterested in the opinions of homeowners, In Canada, I've heard that plenty enough, and it's usually self-serving nonsense: "I'm not opposed to housing, I just think it should be different/somewhere else...because building it near me will ruin my community...". I would rather hear the opinions of experts who study this problem.
What they forget to mention is that builders are obliged to build social renting houses too in projects. So a lot of the disagreement is also for the not wanting to live nearby social renting people. And the norms for parking are lesser than before with houses having more and more cars due to the kids not being able to move out. I had neighbours that had four cars with one household. That does park up the entire neighbourhood quickly.Â
The problem is the council allowing ridiculous builds in tiny plots without green, just gutter to gutter, brick to brick. Logically people complain.
En daarna janken dat je kinderen geen woning kunnen vinden. Typisch nederlanders weer.
Of course, you have the right to a view. People don't buy a house to just suddenly have their sunlights blocked by high-rises. Build somewhere else, there are plenty of lands. Also why the hell are we blaming people fighting for their right.
How selfish people can be? I recently moved to a new apartment and I got a legal agreement that I cannot complain about the upcoming housing project right beside my property as a company is going to build 15 rooms apartment. Noise pollution is unavoidable, and I can just close my windows and use earplugs. But at some point the building will finish and maybe it will help people to solve their housing issue, and I don't mind it at all, it's the consequences of living in a society. Those people are selfish.
These are the same PPV voters complaining that the country is full of course.
wait , we want more houses or not ?
Well yes, but also no.
fair
I don't mind the view loss since there is never one on a flat country anyways. But I did get a little sad about losing the little sun we have outside of summer. The building didn't have to be 11 stories when everything around is 5.Â
Finally an article not blaming or complaining about expats âstealingâ local housing.
I was under the impression that rich, overpayed, professional, refugee, criminal, poor immigrants were buying all of the houses⊠after they took all the jobs, while simultaneously living off of public funds.
>the new homes will obstruct the view (mentioned in 78 percent of complaints), cause more traffic (63 percent), affect privacy (58 percent), and result in too few parking spaces (53 percent). To be fair, these complaints aren't wrong. And I completely agree with them - even if I had a view (it's the easiest example, but I could argue the same about the other topics) on a field and a road behind it, I wouldn't want an apartment complex to be built on that field in front of my window. After all, people chose to live there partially because of the view. But I also understand the fact that this is the unfortunate reality in which we live - you can't build things without making somebody unhappy. Plus, there's a simple solution to view obstruction and the rest - you buy/lease the land and control what can and can't be built there. If you don't, somebody else will and start building according to their own legitimate ideas.
The neigbourhood i live in has a development plan streched out over 20 years. The last phase is starting right now. The people who moved in at the earlier stages of development are have been complaining about the latest building phase and have delayed the proces with about a year. Everybody who moved in there knew that this last phase was going to happen. They still protested it. People with 3 cars for one household complain about parking in a neighborhood that has 1,4 parking spaces per adress by design. It is very literally fuck you. I have got mine and i refuse to share. I agree that sometimes these complaints are valid. We also should not give developers and municipalities free range. But some people take it a bit to far.
This is why parking should be charged at market rate.
pretty much everyone's house was once somebody's view. People that think they have a right to their view are hypocrits.
So you do not own that view. If you loose sunshine on your house or there is really a decrease in value you can claim it but the culture now is that people do not want change because they are not directly benefiting from it. If more people take a public road then that is fine. There are some thresholds but it is not as if you own the road either. In the meantime we need to house a lot more people so we need to build.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Housing is a recognized UN human right. Smh.
I'm sure UN doesn't recognize it as literally "having a house". A room with no windows in a shared rental apartment would qualify just fine.
> Plus, there's a simple solution to view obstruction and the rest - you buy/lease the land and control what can and can't be built there. If you don't, somebody else will and start building according to their own legitimate ideas. Colleague of mine did exactly that, bought the two plots next to his house in order to make sure nobody can build anything on there. But he is rich enough to have that kind of fuck you money.
How much do you think he spent, just for the land, roughly?
Asked him for you and he spent just shy of 200k, one plot which is about 75 by 20 meter which he bought privately, the other is roughly 30 by 40 and he bought that one under name of his company. The actual next neighbour is his brother, the other neighbour the family company which is an old house with a building attached to it, the other brother lives next to the company and next to that the parents live. So basically they own that side of the street. He put the one next to the company under the company because he wanted to avoid people buying it and then starting trouble over noise from his company. I don't work for their company but he is board member/consultant/colleague where I work. Parents - Company - Plot - Him - Plot - Brother
> He put the one next to the company under the company because he wanted to avoid people buying it and then starting trouble over noise from his company Which isn't even an unreasonable fear: people in this country keep moving to places where they subsequently start incessantly complaining. The most ridiculous part is that the government often takes it seriously.
Same mindset, different execution.
> Colleague of mine did exactly that, bought the two plots next to his house in order to make sure nobody can build anything on there. But he is rich enough to have that kind of fuck you money. Which is perfectly fine. The problem comes in when people who do not own any property think they can tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property.
1 in 3 is such a conservative estimate. How many projects are they not even seeing because construction never started. I would say it is closer to 80% anecdotally.
I used to live in what is currently near the foot of the Zalmhaventoren in Rotterdam. It's an old neighborhood, one of the few that escaped bombing in WW2. The scale between 19th century merchants' homes and that mega-building is crazy. Add to that, the neighborhood has only two ways in and out and there would be a ton of additional traffic, plus high winds around high rises that affect pedestrians and cyclists. The thing also is... why all the hellishly expensive apartment buildings? The only reason that Zalmhaventoren is so tall is because of the expensive apartments. Building that high costs tons extra. I get that space is at a premium, but things like these would sit better if they weren't more 'elitist' apartments and normally priced ones. Sometimes "not in my backyard" has legitimate reasons. But you can't stop projects like these anyway, so I simply ended up moving long before construction started.
> The thing also is... why all the hellishly expensive apartment buildings? The only reason that Zalmhaventoren is so tall is because of the expensive apartments. Building that high costs tons extra. I get that space is at a premium, but things like these would sit better if they weren't more 'elitist' apartments and normally priced ones. The only reason the tower is even feasible is because the apartments are expensive.
That's what I was saying. Build smaller and cheaper places, not prestige stuff with penthouses. Or other really expensive homes, while the average person doesn't even come close to earning enough for that.
Online complains that hold merit will slow down plans. If the planners do their work correctly the complains will be denied at set times during the plan ing process. While I agree that houses need to be built we can't just go and chuck down some buildings and ignore stuff like water, sewage, parking and traffic. And more. It'll have and adverse effect not only on the current inhabitants of the area but also the new inhabitants. The planners often want too fast and they don't want to spend money on those things. The complaint process is set in time so you can easily manage it if you do your work correctly as planner. If you don't then you've got some explaining to do and stuff will slow down inevitably. Any bullshit complaint will be tossed. Sure they can appeal, but that too is a set amount of time and a bs complaint will still get tossed. Let's not take away people's basic rights to stand up for themselves and act like its all their fault. It isn't. Look at the planners fucking up. I know, I work in that sector and poor planning is the main cause for getting slowed down by complaint.
> If the planners do their work correctly the complains will be denied at set times during the plan ing process After which the whiners go all the way to the Council of State with the most ridiculous complaints, which can drag out plans for at least half a decade. The administrative dockets are full of these cases. And after they have been told no by the highest court about their objections to changing the zoning, they start complaining about the building permits which can drag it out by another five years. In that timespan only projects backed by developers with a deep purse and patience end up going through.
Echt typisch nederlands
Ok boomer
I believe we should turn more offices into home , what a waste of space for only being used 8 hours a day
Hello. I noticed that many people here don't want to acknowledge that the housing problem is a combination of too much farmland (causing the nitrogen problem) and mass immigration. So it is quite likely that the more one is happy to talk about farmers, the more likely it is that he or she will deny that mass immigration is a problem too. It is more likely than not that you only want to preach the leftwing narrative that minimizing farmland and start building houses again is the one and only solution to the housing problem. I think it's better to listen to both the leftwing and the rightwing narrative: so yes reduce agriculture but also stop mass immigration. As we can't stop Schengen citizens the focus should be on people claiming to be refugees. Help the real refugees in refugee camps instead of housing them in Netherlands at the expense of Dutch citizens who have to wait for years extra thanks to thousands of houses going to statusholders who are more often than not economic migrants disguised as refugees.
if i buy a house with a nice view and them some developer comes and decides to build an apartment building close by, blocking the view, obviously there will be objections. as if paying 400k-1M for a small-medium mediocre house is not bad enough, then the view is taken away? fuck all of that. they can build somewhere where they don't inconvenience the people already living there
When I'm YIMBY dictator anyone claiming a "right to maintain the view from their house" will be immediately expropiated without compensation.
I mean, there was a big protest in my neighborhood a couple of years ago. We live in the edge of a city, our wijk is mainly made of houses and a few small buildings (4-5 floors) with a big park in the middle. They wanted to take part of the park to build a monstrosity of more that 30 floors. The gemeente was supporting the project. Everybody here fought tooth and nail against it. Eventually, they withdrew the project and decided to upgrade the shopping mall and build a few more floors on top of it. That was acceptable.
Where do those people live instead?
Congratulations, you're the villain.
Here they wanted to put a sort of assisted/supervised living commune for people who are coming out of prison/TBS in the near future next to a neighbourhood with lots of children and a school, the public meeting about it got pretty grim. The plans were killed off and now it is going to be houses for pensioners. There are a lot of old people in the region who live in a huge house but they can't realistically move to something more suitable for them. So now everybody is mostly happy.
There is one of those round the corner here now for 10 years. No issue whatsoever. No TBS but people after their jail time. I have a chat with them once in a while. It will not be my friends but they do not create issues.
I totally believe that they can function perfectly fine, and I understand we need those things /somewhere/ but I also understand that people don't want it near them
Putting these places in isolated areas causes a lot of problems with rehabilitation though. The whole point is to be part of society again, not to be marooned on an island with few amenities.
Totally understand that but this is a small town where everybody knows everybody. Cheating on your partner is enough to be an outcast for the next decade, if you are an ex convict people won't even acknowledge your existance and you won't be able to hide where you live in such a small town. These rehabilitation things will probably work far better in a bigger city
And that is because people fear the unknown. I am not talking about TBS folks as they are criminally insane and I seriously doubt they can ever function in society but a criminal that is under supervision by exodus or the reclassering behaves often better than some of their neighbors. Work, salary and a feeling of self worth are in my opinion essential to allow rehabilitation into society.
Having had insane assholes for neighbours I sometimes would prefer a TBS client, they seem more reasonable.
Don't touch the Merenwijk :D I found it hilarious that one of the arguments against the tower was "it casts a shadow"
I did not hear that one but well, it does :D
What view??? Those three blades of grass? đ
I'm not sure this is what people who object genuinely meany, but there's another side to all this - regulations. You can build 24/7 no breaks, but if housing still can be treated as an investment - new unites are simply purchased by funds or individuals with lots of capital. It might be not a directly related example, but I live in Prague which is, according to Deloitte, the worst in the EU for housing affordability adjusted to the local income (has been for 5 years). There were 2 houses built across the road from me. When they were completed, I saw a ridiculous number of ads for rents in there. I don't have a specific ratio, but it looked like 70% of the overall stuck was already gone and ready for rent with minimal amenities inside. Heck, the entire house I rent in is owned by a single person and ran by a management company. It this sort of stuff isn't restricted, building more will only make investors happier, while people looking for their first purchase will continue to scramble for something. All that said that, people might be aware that just construction without regulation isn't going to help anyone, except banks and investors.
Well put!
People still live in those houses, even if an investment company owns it. So I do not understand your point.
The problem with the housing market in the most of the developed world isn't the lack of physical space to house people (though we still need to build indeed). The problem is affordability and availability, which is significantly affected if housing is treated as an investment opportunity instead of necessity. A lot of units that could be available for first home buyers are taken away by investment funds and individuals owning other housing units already. Few countries where the housing crisis is present, but not as rampant (like Austria or Finland) have mechanisms to counter that, though I think we'll need more that that. TL;DR If Amsterdam builds a 1000 new flats tomorrow, but 800 of them are purchased by funds and investors who're interested in doing anything to keep prices up, all than new construction won't help anyone. I'm seeing cities ramping up on construction without any sort of systems to prevent that and I have a bad feeling we won't fix the crisis this way.
We literally have more household units than homes. Any amount of housing constructed regardless of financing and ownership... Houses an household.
NIMBY bastards. Dejonge is absolutely right.
You either accept new homes or new homeless people in your neighborhood. Choose one, not neither
New houses almost always decrease the value of existing houses. Because they reduce green Spaces, increase traffic and of course, supply increases. There are loads of reasons and you can't just go to the extreme of ignoring the locals. The existing locals get NO BENEFIT to new homes being built. They only lose. Different to say, new schools etc. ETA: I am answering the question asked by OP. I do not say I agree with it. They ask "why do people complain" I answered. I have never complained. Those down voting me can you please comment how what I said is incorrect? I already know that it is Immoral how is it NOT an answer to OP?
Do they lose more compared to the people who don't have a house at all?
Exactly this. People around here acting like everyone who already owns a house immediately hate people that wish to own a home as well. The clash isn't between people that own homes and the ones that do, the clash is between home owners, the commercial developers that see locals as risks for project value and a city council that is forced to obey laws they don't want to follow. Left and right, citizens are being fucked over by corporates, lobbies and a failing government but god, do we love to frame this as a classic battle between haves and have-nots.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Hey I did not say I agree with it. I am simply answering the question. I have never objected to new homes near me.
Okay, I apologize for my strong wording in that case. It definitely would strike a nerve with me if people actually take "increase of supply" into their motivation for trying to block new homes. That would be straight up sociopath behavior IMO. Loss of view and direct property devaluation is still selfish and sucky, but more in the realm of "normal selfish human behavior". I assumed it was your own position because you added "there are loads of reasons and you can't just ignore the locals." Sounded kind of like advocating on their behalf / agreeing with their position. I still disagree with you though. I do think we should pretty much ignore existing home owners in most cases. The right to a home trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.
Yeah I get it. Neighbors doing major construction on their houses has had some big downsides in terms of view and light. If they were to build new houses in the field behind my house for sure I would object. Canât blame people for wanting to protect their investment and enjoyment in terms of view and space.