[HN Gopher] Amsterdam bans cruise ships
___________________________________________________________________
Amsterdam bans cruise ships
Author : elorant
Score : 101 points
Date : 2023-07-22 20:57 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| I would love for Seattle to ban cruise ships as well, if only for
| the absolute madness their passangers create at the Seatac
| airport. I would personally kill the cruise industry altogether,
| everywhere.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| The smell they emit when running their generators in port is
| also horrible. I don't see much good cruise ships bring
| Seattle, it was better back in the 90s before this was much of
| a thing. I'm not even sure what they do beyond hitting pike
| place and a bit of the water front.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| The market-based solution for that of course would be to
| engineer municipal power to the docks along with estimated
| costs for the project.
|
| Set a required minimum risk-weighted profit to the city of 2x
| or so. Then solicit bids for binding long-term contracts from
| cruise companies, with the stipulation that their generators
| stay off while in port. If no bids meet the minimum, shelve
| the whole thing. Otherwise, proceed and enjoy the boost to
| the city treasury.
|
| Of course in the real world this would be a political process
| and highly vulnerable to corruption by private interests.
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| As one of these tourists, who arrived back today form a European
| cruise, am I struggling to understand the issue (too close to my
| heart?).
|
| We do need more regulation to force ship to use better fuel and
| more on-shore energy. More like France to ban short air trips.
|
| By the way - I visit a museum at many places. Not sure what is
| meant by consuming the city. If you arrive by boat, you _must_
| use public transport (or good old feet) to get around. I
| understand that it is a a surge in demand, but I am putting money
| in to the local economy. I do not use international chain (except
| Ikea in Sweden - meat balls). Local worker in local shops.
|
| Rotterdam is a nicer city to visit by cruise ship that Amsterdam.
| Apart from the Van Gogh museum.
| seszett wrote:
| > _If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or
| good old feet) to get around. I understand that it is a a surge
| in demand, but I am putting money in to the local economy._
|
| Public transport is usually run at a loss, and at least partly
| funded with local taxes. Same for public museums, although I
| don't know about the Netherlands.
|
| I think the amount of pollution per passenger is really
| disproportionately high for cruise ships, and I'm afraid
| nothing can be really done about it. It's just a less efficient
| means of transportation.
|
| Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container ships
| is at a whole other level though.
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| >I think the amount of pollution per passenger is really
| disproportionately high for cruise ships
|
| Cruise ships are not perfect. I love to take the sleeper
| train everywhere. Perfect is the enemy of good. Air travel is
| bad. Carbon footprints is a hard one, try to minimise impact.
| I think nudging the industry into electric ships and using
| shore-side power is better.
|
| >Public transport is usually run at a loss Maybe - look I
| don't want to go anywhere which do not want the ship to
| visit, however local officials (democratically elected) keep
| building facilities for ship to visit.
|
| >Same for public museums, I never bulk at a price - charge me
| a tourist rate - or use tricks so local can pay less. Put the
| price of the gift ship. But for example the Gender museum in
| Aarhus you not going to get a better take on local thinking
| without a physical visit.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container
| ships is at a whole other level though.
|
| Meaning diesel exhaust? So, nitrous oxide? I assume they're
| not allowed to burn heavy fuel oil in port.
| [deleted]
| belorn wrote:
| > It's just a less efficient means of transportation.
|
| Boats could be a very efficient way of travel. Luxury cruise
| ships are inefficient because they general carries things
| like swimming pools, golf courses, major shopping malls and
| restaurants. The proportion of space and weight that is used
| for transportation is tiny compared to something like a
| train, buss or aircraft (or even a car).
|
| Ferries in contrast has very low carbon footprint of travel
| per kilometer, as can be read in this graph:
| (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-
| travel-m...).
|
| Since container ships has a very high ratio of transported
| goods vs total weight of the ship, and those tend to have one
| of the lowest carbon footprint per ton/mile. It is one of
| many reason why things like ore is generally always preferred
| to be shipped by water.
| dieselgate wrote:
| This isn't meant to be a personal jab but in my opinion
| tourists, by definition, are "consuming" the region they are
| touring. Consumption is not always over-consumption.
|
| Tough luck for us all, especially when there are so many
| downsides of cruises or flying. But not all tourism is "bad"
| and of course many economies depend on it - it's a tricky
| balance.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Precisely. Tourists are like locusts. They congregate on that
| cute little place that suddenly then isn't cute anymore, turn
| every other store into a souvenir store and the rest into
| hotels and restaurants to feed the hordes. It drives up the
| rents and consequently the property prices until the people
| that used to live there no longer can afford to.
|
| And that's before you get into drug tourism, which Amsterdam
| has a lot of as well.
|
| I was born there and lived there for 28 years, I'll still
| visit occasionally because I still have some friends there
| but on the whole the city has lost its charm for me.
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| >Precisely. Tourists are like locusts.
|
| Ok - so how to I go on holiday and not be a locust ? What
| is the solution no holidays, no travel ?
|
| I live in London and its can be fun trying to get a real
| work meeting near Houses of Parliament as 'locusts' are all
| around. However - quid pro quo
|
| >And that's before you get into drug tourism, which
| Amsterdam has a lot of as well. Not sure the tourism came
| before the changes to local drug enforcement.
| bombcar wrote:
| The pollution has nothing to do with carbon, though nobody will
| admit it.
|
| _You_ were the pollutant, and the natives want the tourists to
| go away and not come back.
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| I feel this if you have economically well off, you want (me)
| the tourist to get off your lawn. However if you want some
| growth and jobs, my dollars/pounds are good. Tricky balance.
| I live in London, sometimes I can be grumpy with tourists but
| heck everyone needs holiday.
| humanistbot wrote:
| No, the locals want the tourists to pay for an expensive
| hotel room or AirBNB, respectfully get to know the city, and
| eat and shop at local establishments. They don't want
| tourists who load up on the breakfast buffet on the ship,
| rush around like maniacs trying to see everything in a few
| hours, maybe buy a little weed or a few trinkets, and then
| rush back to the ship buffet for an early dinner.
| bombcar wrote:
| Agreed with everything but AirBNB - tourist areas have
| hotels located in specific areas to maximize control of the
| tourist disruptions; AirBNBs have sidestepped that in many
| areas (often the areas that are now clamping down on short-
| term non-hotel rentals).
| bastawhiz wrote:
| You might be the exception to the rule.
|
| > Mayor Femke Halsema complained last year that cruise tourists
| were let loose for a couple of hours, ate at international
| chains and had no time to visit a museum, consuming the city
| but doing little for it.
|
| They cite 20 million visitors each year, which is a huge number
| of people. Even if those people each only show up for one day
| (evenly distributed through the year) and leave, that's 55,000
| people each day, which is a huge number.
|
| Those are people who might be putting some money into the local
| economy, but it sounds like the cost to the government for all
| of the services provided to support the tourism industry
| (police, healthcare, etc) isn't making enough of an impact on
| the local economy to justify.
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| >that's 55,000 people each day, which is a huge number.
| Cruise ship has around 4,000 (for a mega ship). So that 10
| ships a day. Even Southampton struggle with 5 at a max.
|
| https://cruisedig.com/ports/amsterdam-holland/arrivals
|
| Suggests much less than 55,000 people each day. More like
| 3,000
| techsupporter wrote:
| > If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or good
| old feet) to get around.
|
| As someone who lives in a city that's popular with tourists and
| has a major summer cruise industry, that's...not entirely
| accurate. A _lot_ of tourists exit the boat and head straight
| for a line of taxis and app-based gig workers. This results in
| a staggering amount of added car traffic. The city has tried
| adding tourist-focused bus routes and branded shuttles but rail
| bias is a major thing in tourism.
|
| > I am putting money in to the local economy. I do not use
| international chain (except Ikea in Sweden - meat balls). Local
| worker in local shops.
|
| I understand that it feels like this and maybe it is true to a
| limited extent, but when an area becomes dominated by tourism,
| tourist-focused industries take over and shops and services
| that cater to longer-term residents are pushed out.
|
| CityBeautiful has an insightful video on this happening in
| Venice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SClC9TtQlco
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| >CityBeautiful has an insightful video on this happening in
| Venice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SClC9TtQlco
|
| Good video - thanks.
|
| >area becomes dominated by tourism
|
| Good point - make me thinks. How to a be a better customer
| and stop cruise ports becoming over dominating. Give-up
| cruising ? Be more selective of which ports.
|
| South-west England is becoming like this (I travelled by
| sleeper train) and feel like tourists dominate locals. So
| dont like going there.
|
| Do ethical holiday exist ?
| ubercore wrote:
| It's hard to overstate the environmental carnage a cruise ship
| creates. They sometimes wake up our kid with their horns. I'm
| suspect about the real economic impact they have, most people
| seem to use hop on hop off busses, mill around a bit, and go
| back to their boat to eat.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK2F1SeBQXY
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Tourism is the modern day resource curse.
|
| It provides mostly only low skilled jobs (just like mining) and
| the financial benefits largely accrue to wealth holders (just
| like mining).
|
| Proper management is crucial to make sure it does not destabilize
| local economies. Banning cruise ships is a good start.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The places that manage to organize tourism flows benefit quite
| a lot. But yeah, cruise ships aren't a great public.
| seydor wrote:
| I m certain that in 10 years we ll be looking at tourism as a
| bad habit like smoking. It's given a free pass for now because
| many developed countries have large tourism sectors but it
| remains an unsustainable source of pollution
| willcipriano wrote:
| It is at that point I'll take those people seriously on
| climate change.
| bedobi wrote:
| This is a good idea and an important first mover (at least when
| it comes to European capitals) which will legitimize doing the
| same in other places around the world.
| seydor wrote:
| that's an economic no brainer for big tourist destinations.
| cruise ship visitors are cheap, they dont spend and just litter
| and clog the city for a few hours.
|
| may be useful for small or up-and-coming destinations
| cguess wrote:
| The late David Foster Wallace wrote an amazing ode to going on a
| single cruise and vowing never to do so again
| https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shipping+out%3a+on+the+(nearl...
| pengaru wrote:
| Whenever I go sailing with friends on SF bay, if we go anywhere
| near a cruise ship my sea sickness goes into overdrive from how
| disgusting the exhaust odor is.
|
| Vile machines, I wish more places would ban them.
| randyrand wrote:
| Same with the shipping container ships in the bay area for me.
|
| The pollution they put out irritates my lungs and all for what,
| consumerism and global trade?
| cguess wrote:
| As a fellow sailor who's only dealt with ferries, what's the
| wake like coming off those cruise ships? I can't imagine it's
| just the fumes causing sea sickness when one of those
| monstrosities steam past your 26' or whatever.
| pengaru wrote:
| Actually I've only been anywhere near them when they're
| docked, presumably taking on passengers.
|
| They're not supposed to run on the bunker oil near shore, but
| the stink from them just idling there is always exceptionally
| bad.
|
| Incidentally, we also learned one time that if you get too
| close (on the order of hundreds of yards) to a docked cruise
| ship the USCG will appear with a large deck-mounted machine
| gun trained on your bow while ordering you to change course.
| So not only are the cruise ships making the air disgusting
| for everyone nearby, our tax dollars are spent guarding them
| from terrorist attacks while doing so too.
|
| I'm sure container ships are disgusting too.. but they don't
| generally sit docked idling for ages where people are doing
| recreation.
| soderfoo wrote:
| How do you cope with sea sickness while sailing?
|
| I've been wanting to take sailing lessons but I'm worried my
| queasiness will rear it's ugly head.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and
| wealthy people instead of these stunts.
|
| And I say it as someone with no interest in cruises.
|
| Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain
| type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly
| caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist.
|
| Much to the point that it's shocking to other tourists who are
| simply visiting it as one more city.
| dundarious wrote:
| It's not quite so simple on the question of the "sex and drugs
| go crazy" tourist:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk...
|
| I haven't lived there in over a decade, but even then, they
| were at least talking about programs to deal with the "worst"
| tourists for a few demographics. And all the while, they were
| putting in lots of money to make things nicer for the kind of
| tourists they like. While I was there, it seemed like a popular
| and economically successful set of policies. I'm guessing they
| still are.
| ethanbond wrote:
| "People should be able to buy drugs and participate in a sex
| economy" does not mean that they are catering to those
| _tourists_. They've been trying to figure out how to retain
| drug /sexual freedom while limiting tourism for that purpose
| for as long as I can remember at least.
|
| That's a totally coherent position to hold, even if it's
| difficult to encode into policy.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| > Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and
| wealthy people instead of these stunts.
|
| I'm pretty sure that a city banning private jets would be
| orders of magnitude less impactful and more media-stuntworty
| than banning cruise ships.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I imagine cruise ship visitors are overwhelmingly relatively low
| spend visitors (cruises tend to be the cheap way to travel)
| supporting low margin activities like restaurants.
| hnboredhn wrote:
| >But Mayor Femke Halsema complained last year that cruise
| tourists were let loose for a couple of hours, ate at
| international chains and had no time to visit a museum, consuming
| the city but doing little for it.
|
| My guess is most of HN is relatively pro-market pro-business so
| this probably won't be controversial, but this seems like the
| type of thing that a government will regret in ten years. So many
| municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come
| in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any
| social services. I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel
| like we've seen countless times cities discouraging visitors and
| then surprised when tax revenues drop.
| cammikebrown wrote:
| Ever been to Amsterdam? It is extremely busy. Getting rid of
| cruise ships will do little to affect that.
| DoubleFree wrote:
| A government's primary purpose is to act on behalf of its
| constituents, and if these daytrippers are substantially
| detrimental to Amsterdam's livability, they should be
| discouraged from going there.
|
| Or, to put it in more financial terms, the cost of compensating
| for the negative effects of these tourists might be much higher
| than the tax revenue they bring in.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I think the counter is that in almost every town locals hate
| tourists, but an average citizen hasn't thought through the
| consequences of not having the tax base support them.
|
| As someone who currently lives in NYC it would be great for
| me if tourists stopped coming to the city and magically the
| level of restaurants, sanitation, and public transit didnt
| change at all.
| cguess wrote:
| I live in NYC too, but imagine if all of Manhattan was
| midtown. That's basically Amsterdam these days. The suburbs
| are fine, but it's a nightmare in the city center. Imagine
| Times Square but like 6x the size.
| Retric wrote:
| Sure, but cruse ship tourists bring in vastly less money so
| it's not a constant benefit from a given level of harm.
| varjag wrote:
| The Dutch are quite pragmatic and they had years to think
| about this.
| elif wrote:
| You can't compare Amsterdam tourists with "every town"
| tourists. Sorry that you have never visited but it is quite
| apparent if you have.
| civilitty wrote:
| "Towns", yes, but NYC? It's so dense that it can easily
| support the vast majority of amenities - as can most big
| European cities.
|
| When's the last time you went to Bubba Gump or Hard Rock
| Cafe? That's the kind of crap most tourism usually
| supports. There is almost zero overlap between the
| restaurants locals go to and the ones the tourists do
| because locals usually can't be assed to wait for a table.
| To them it's not a special occasion like a vacation, just
| another day.
|
| I've found this to be an almost universal rule east of the
| Mississippi (on the other hand Californians have a weird
| fetish for waiting in line an hour to sit at a brunch place
| with less than a dozen tables).
| qwytw wrote:
| Amsterdam's old town is tiny if you compare it to NYC, if
| you have limited capacity it's also rational to prioritize
| tourists who are likely to spend more per capita (I'm not
| sure if this will necessarily be the long-term outcome of
| the band though).
| Timon3 wrote:
| > So many municipalities would kill for a large number of
| people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave
| without using any social services.
|
| This is in opposition to your quote. Mayor Halsema said the
| tourists are at international chains, you're talking about
| paying locals. Money spent at these chains isn't contributing
| to the local economy as much as actually spending money at
| local shops is.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Locals still work at international chains and they pay taxes
| though.
|
| It's not as much as local businesses but it's more than
| nothing, unless the mayors claim is that those international
| businesses are negative impacts on the economy, in which case
| why not ban them rather than the cruise ships?
|
| I'd guess the cruise ships are just an easy scapegoat because
| they are considered unfashionable.
| midasuni wrote:
| Their passengers don't pay hotels, often eat most of their
| meals on board, inject far less into the economy than
| someone staying in a hotel but still take up valuable
| resources of the city.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Or because they're the only vector by which tourists
| interact with Amsterdam in a <24hr span?
|
| Thousand and thousands of people arriving, confused and not
| necessarily having been excited about Amsterdam in
| particular, and then leaving within 8 hours?
|
| Seems believable that cruise tourists are unlike any other
| type.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| I live in a town that has cruise ships come in (in New
| Zealand) and it seems they often have activities planned
| as they hop on tour buses, minivans etc and go off to do
| things for the day.
|
| I imagine the same would apply to ppl arriving in
| Amsterdam - being aware of activities to do in the city.
|
| They are unlike other tourists, but I wouldn't jump to
| assuming that's a bad thing.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| This kind of thinking gutted small towns across America.
| Main Street businesses folded and were boarded up, replaced
| by mcdonalds and shartmart. Economic death for the town.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I think what I'm suggesting is that if you think
| McDonalds and Walmart are a net negative (I'm
| sympathetic) you just ban those businesses. Not some
| derivative customer base.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel like we've seen
| countless times cities discouraging visitors and then surprised
| when tax revenues drop.
|
| Care to cite some examples? Because I certainly can't think of
| any.
|
| Sure, tourism can be a double edged sword, but all the cities I
| can think of that want to limit tourism (e.g. Venice,
| Barcelona, etc.) don't appear to have had any negative effects
| from their campaigns to limit tourism. If anything, these
| cities are trying to keep the "soul" of their cities intact, to
| keep their appeal that attracted so many tourists in the first
| place.
| TillE wrote:
| Yeah I can't think of a single case where any city
| deliberately and successfully discouraged tourism to a
| significant extent.
|
| It's _possible_ to do by like, jacking up hotel taxes 100x,
| but nobody actually does that. Maybe some little town, I
| dunno.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local
| taxes, and then leave without using any social services
|
| Sounds like you're describing Downtown SF. I imagine right now
| many in the city wish the area had been less reliant on people
| coming in from elsewhere.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Tourists - fortunately - don't get to vote in the municipality
| elections. Not that Halsema would care because we don't vote
| for mayors in NL. But she got this one right. I'd be even
| happier if they jacked up the landing taxes for Schiphol to 10x
| of what they are today.
| intothemild wrote:
| I still think the solution lies in either curbing Airbnb, or
| banning it.
|
| They tried before and failed, I hope they try again.
|
| Having visited Amsterdam over the last 14 years semi-
| regularly for work, one of the things that struck me is after
| AirBnB took off, things quickly got worse there.. Even in
| off-peak seasons it's just a nightmare downtown.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, it stopped being funny long ago. Lots of former rental
| properties have been converted to short stay hotels. And
| plenty of the owners are living abroad so Amsterdam is
| hollowed out from two directions at once like this (space
| wise and finance wise).
|
| There is no affordable space in the inner city anymore.
| Nothing. When I grew up tourism wasn't a thing, now it
| looks as though the whole city has essentially been given
| over to it with everything else secondary. Really happy to
| see Halsema make some sensible moves to curb this. But it's
| lots too late and probably way too little.
| mrtksn wrote:
| This destroys any value the city has beyond logistics for the
| cruise ship. That kind of tourist don't need a city of high
| cultural and historical value, they need a large building with
| shops in it. Just put that infrastructure somewhere else.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Ultimately, it's hard to tell. SF spent many years decrying
| tech, tourists, and folks coming in to work across the bridges.
| Now that's mostly all gone and the city is shite but few in the
| city associate the two, expecting similar services with vastly
| less revenue.
| elif wrote:
| The tourists in Amsterdam are so bad it suppresses residents
| and businesses in a similar though obviously not identical way
| to the street residents of San Francisco.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Cruise ship tourism isn't necessarily type of tourism you want
| to encourage. Specially if you are already popular and well
| enough connected location for all strata.
|
| The tourist arriving with ships already have paid for their
| board and food. So they are less likely to spend money in the
| city. And then it is possibly they go on tours run by the ship
| thus most money not going to locals.
|
| In the end many cities in Europe especially don't need this
| type of tourism. They have enough organic self-grown much more
| profitable tourism already. Does not mean there isn't some
| places where local economy depends on it. And even then cruise
| companies are trying to capture also the gains there.
| yreg wrote:
| Why not just crank up the port fees for cruise ships enough
| to cover for this gap?
|
| Although perhaps it would be effectively the same as outright
| banning the ships.
| rightbyte wrote:
| The port could be owned by the state or some private
| entity, not the city.
|
| I think e.g. the Venice port is owned by the state.
| cguess wrote:
| Because the knock on effects aren't just in the tourists
| not spending money, but clogging the streets (go to central
| Amsterdam on a Saturday evening sometime, it's insane)
| causing trouble, and even if there's money that's not going
| to the cooks, servers, museum docents etc.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| In addition cruises are often marketed to people looking to
| save money, so you have even less of a chance of them
| spending in a meaningful way, even beyond the rationale
| you've already laid out.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| ...while simultaneously driving out the type of visitor
| they do want to attract.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Amsterdam doesn't seem to be discouraging ordinary tourists;
| this appears to be targeted exclusively at cruise ships.
|
| Over 5 million tourists visit Amsterdam a year[1]; only a small
| fraction of that probably come from cruise ships. If banning
| those ships improves local quality of life _and_ the tourist
| experience for non-cruise tourists, then it 's probably a net
| win in terms of tax revenues (besides everything else).
|
| [1]: https://amsterdam.org/en/facts-and-figures.php
| johnyzee wrote:
| Kind of...
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-
| uk...
| narag wrote:
| _So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people
| to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without
| using any social services._
|
| A cruise ship can be a giant loophole that leaves all
| externalities to others. Even AirBNB model leaves more money to
| locals.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Amsterdam is already crowded with visitors.
|
| You want to discourage lower value visitors after a certain
| point. Cruise passengers would spend far less than land
| visitors in Amsterdam.
| melenaboija wrote:
| Nobody wants this type of tourism, pollution and massive groups
| of people wandering around with little economic impact.
|
| Barcelona is trying to limit them also [1]
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/a-plague-of-
| lo...
| humanistbot wrote:
| > This seems like the type of thing that a government will
| regret in ten years
|
| Then in ten years, they can reassess and easily re-open the
| dock. I don't think you're right, but there isn't really a big
| risk here even if you are right. Even if the dock gets
| repurposed to something else, if this somehow devastates the
| city's economy, it is easy to reverse.
|
| People will still want to come to Amsterdam, even more so if
| they weren't able to stop there on a cruise. The only thing
| that can really stop tourists from coming to Amsterdam is if
| its reputation somehow falls below its historical postcard
| allure and libertine reputation. The main threat to that is the
| city becoming so packed with rowdy tourists, although even
| still the hotels and hostels will all be full, just not able to
| charge $100/night for a hostel bed or $300/night for a tiny
| bedroom like they can now. But if you're right and the city
| reverses course, I am sure that the cruise ships will be
| fighting each other for a spot.
| chewz wrote:
| Venice did the same, some time ago. No one wants these
| "tourists"...
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I recall a big reason for that was because bigger ships like
| cruise liners damage and destroy the seabed which worsens
| Venice's flooding problems.
| xyst wrote:
| In my opinion, western countries (namely the USA) should model
| itself after Amsterdam and the Dutch in general.
|
| They figured out (or at least improved on) transportation of
| people. City design is amazing and they have a multitude of
| options to move around (bike, train, walkable, or micro
| transportation). Their cities are much more cleaner, enjoyable,
| not as noisy, and everyone in general seems much more happier.
|
| Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an
| absolute necessity to own a car. Minimal alternatives. High
| dependency on highway / street infrastructure that requires
| significant resources to build AND maintain.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from
| countries like the Netherlands and Denmark (my country).
|
| However please don't emulate our habit of flying to exotic
| destinations during our summer vacation. That would probably be
| the final nail in the coffin for the global climate.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from
| countries like the Netherlands and Denmark
|
| But they won't. It's culturally incompatible.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-22 23:00 UTC)