Louvre Café Syndrome: Misunderstanding Amsterdam and America

iStock_000005314648XSmall.jpg

Tourists, journalists and urban planners are often smitten with what might be called the "Louvre Café Syndrome." This occurs when Americans sit at Paris cafes in view of the Louvre and imagine why it is that the United States does not look like this. In fact, most of Paris doesn't even look like this, nor do other European urban areas. Like their US counterparts, European urban areas rely principally on cars for mobility (though to a somewhat lesser degree) and their residents live in suburbs that have been built since World War II.

The last example of Louvre Café Syndrome comes from Washington Post Writer's Group columnist Neal Peirce, who suggests that Amsterdam, with its bicycles, is the model for America to follow in a time of high energy prices.

Not only is this view incorrect, but Amsterdam is not even a model for the Netherlands. The largest urban areas of the Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, have been "stuck in neutral" with respect to growth for at least 45 years. United Nations data indicates that since 1960, 97 percent of urban growth in the Netherlands has occurred outside these two large urban areas. While the population of the two largest urban areas has increased approximately 10 percent, the urban population outside these areas has increased by 120 percent.

And how do these urbanites that have chosen not to live in Amsterdam or Rotterdam travel? Try by car. Overall, in the Netherlands, approximately 85 percent of travel is by car --- a figure that is nearly identical to the United States. All of the subway and light rail ridership in the Netherlands is less than the annual increase in car use. Some model.

America is a growing nation. Between now and 2030, approximately two-thirds of the urban growth in the developed world is projected to occur in the United States --- that is a considerable number given the fact that the US accounts for less than one-third of the developed world's urban population today. The strategies that work in urban areas with stagnant growth --- such as Amsterdam --- will not work here.

As for the bicycles, one could also point to walking and the large share of travel that it represents in Manhattan or the Chicago Loop. A European felled by Louvre Café Syndrome might visit these places and imagine that the urban area looks the same all the way to the urban fringe --- that the citizens of New Brunswick, Westfield or Aurora live in residential skyscrapers and that they walk everywhere. Such a view would be as faulty as Peirce's vision of Amsterdam.

It helps to think of things in context. Amsterdam would barely rank in the top 50 metropolitan areas of the United States. The Netherlands has a population less than that of two American metropolitan areas (combined statistical areas), New York and Los Angeles. Finally, all of the Netherlands --- urban and rural areas --- would fit into an area approximately 1.5 times that of the New York metropolitan area.

You can't see everything from the Louve.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

Subjects:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Incorrect and misinterpreted

Mr. Cox,
I believe several figures you quote are incorrect. You are right to say that Amsterdam itself would barely make the top 50 metropolitan areas in the U.S., but why would we compare a central city with a metropolitan area? You yourself argue that European cities also have suburbs, so we must take these also into account. Amsterdam's own metropolitan area has 2.2 million people, placing it at a modest 24th in the United States. However, the EU considers Amsterdam a part of the larger Randstad region with a population of 6.7 million, which would place 4th in the United States.

I was not able to find data specifying population growth in the Randstad region (UN data was unavailable when I tried), but since the region contains nearly 40% of the Netherlands' population, including its four largest cities, we may safely assume it has grown along with the rest of the Netherlands.

A simple visit to Google Maps will show anyone that Amsterdam is simply built differently from American cities. Notice how close farmland sits to the center of the city. Notice the "Green Heart" region carefully preserved in the center of the Randstad.

Interestingly, Randstad translates as "Edge City." This is a reference to the form of the Randstad, in which dense cities sit on the edge of the "Green Heart." Of course, these dense edge cities are quite different from those promoted by Mr. Kotkin.

Patrick Sewell

Suburbanizing Amsterdam and the Randstadt: Author Responds

Dear Mr. Sewell:

The distribution of population growth in the Randstadt reflects exactly what would be expected in an automobile oriented, suburbanizing area. Between the early 1960s and 2000, the population of the five largest Randstadt municipalities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Haarlem has declined approximately 500,000. At the same time, suburban areas in the Randstadt have increased nearly 2,000,000. That means the suburbs captured more than 130 percent of the growth. In fact the share of growth in the suburbs of Chicago was less than in the Randstadt, despite the fact that the city of Chicago also lost nearly 500,000 population.

The article does not compare the central city (Amsterdam) population US metropolitan areas. On the other hand, there is considerable difficulty with metropolitan data, not least because there are no international standards. The closest approximation to broad metropolitan area data in Europe is the EU Urban Audit’s “larger urban zone” (LUZ). The EU does not consider the Randstadt as single LUZ, dividing it into three --- Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht.

The overwhelming reality is that all Randstadt growth, all Rotterdam growth and all Amsterdam growth has been in suburban areas.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

Reasons for stagnation

I don't know the specific reasons why Amsterdam and Rotterdam have experienced so little growth within their boundaries, there is no reason to assume that their growth rates are a result of their urban form. Most cities severely limit the amount of new development and the height of such development, and I would expect such regulations to be more severe in areas with as much historical architecture as Europe has. Those restrictions make living in those areas far more expensive than suburban tract housing.

We can and should loosen those restrictions as much as possible to increase affordability in our dense areas, which will make walking, biking, and public transit more feasible for more people. I think people would enjoy living in those areas that they speak so fondly of if it weren't for the cost.

Excellent

Excellent commentary.
Although, I do love being a tourist in Paris and traveling everywhere by Metro.
Sometimes, we need to have the DATA pounded into our collective brains.

Dave Barnes
+1.303.744.9024
http://www.MarketingTactics.com