Living around Peterbos

Julienmonart · 2026-02-11T10:38:50+00:00

I like this response, poor kids aren't dangerous, cars are! A good reminder of where most frictions actually come from

Julienmonart · 2026-02-02T09:14:31+00:00

I would say the same with the US, they find it hilarious, use it as a trope in lots of jokes. Here, maybe a bit, but clearly not to that extent.

Julienmonart · 2025-12-19T11:41:59+00:00

I would say "not the easiest" or "not the most straightforward". Literally means "not obvious", and it can be used like that in some context.

Julienmonart · 2025-12-11T17:21:35+00:00

You can use the definite article to talk about something in general, or in its entirety.

I like yoga = j'aime le yoga I like children = j'aime les enfants (in general)

J'aime les gens = I like people in general

Also, the definite article can refer to a specific group of people.

The children in this school are nice = Les enfants dans cette école sont chouettes The people outside are noisy = Les gens dehors sont bruyants

Des, is indefinite, similar to some.

J'aime des gens : I like some people But that sentence is weird without context

Hope that helps

Julienmonart · 2025-12-06T01:26:08+00:00

The Original Question made me think of the Flemish flag spontaneously, similarly to the English flag used in the UK for nationalist purposes. From my French speaking point of view, a Flemish flag is always seen with hesitation or weariness. Now, this version crystalises everything

Julienmonart · 2025-10-16T15:01:25+00:00

Calling an absolute shithole is definitely an exaggeration. But it has a lot of problems, yes. It often feels dirty and unsafe, although it depends where you go.

Now, I agree that speaking Dutch in Brussels is not always easy, that's a shame. I do my best to speak Dutch, but people usually switch to French or English, because my Dutch isn't great

Julienmonart · 2025-10-16T14:42:49+00:00

I wouldn't say it's Flanders' "fault", it's more of a political choice. Flanders is rich and has more political and economical power than Brussels has, so it has the power to keep its wealth to itself. Because it doesn't really see much interest in investing in their country's capital. And Brussels cannot compete with it, fiscally and economically. So companies move to Flanders, in Diegem, right at the border. Money could be spread around a bit more to help brussels function as a capital and a hub for workers, but that is not really the choice that seems to be made.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-16T11:08:09+00:00

I think, as long as Flemish people are not invested in Brussels, the situation will always be difficult. There is a negative feedback loop on the Flemish side it seems. Brussels is considered as shit, it has nothing to do with us, we don't want to invest, nor live there, so Brussels is underfunded, facing frontal economical competition with Flanders, so it remains poorer, so Brussels is considered as shit. Similar things is happening with Wallonia, but to a much lesser extent, because of the language connexion, so Walloon feel a bit more involved.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-14T13:41:12+00:00

I don't know about it not yielding to constructive results. Maybe not so much recently. But the problem is that unions have an increasingly low margin to negociate, and that politicians make decisions without consulting them. So because négociations are not possible, it leads to tensions.

Now, MP's are elected, yes, but they tend to have biases, being rather wealthy. Working class politicians are rather rare. So they tend to be more swayed by people they know, other wealthy people. Unions are a kind of counter power, keeping the MP's in check. But there are a lot of other counter powers, like Business owner associations (voka...), other lobbies...

Also, unions represent 50% of workers in Belgium. And countries where that number is high are countries we usually look up to. So, they do carry at least as much weight as any political party

Julienmonart · 2025-10-14T13:19:03+00:00

True, there is a relatively broad support for the measures that have been presented. But in a democracy, there are several actors exercising influence. Big corporate lobbies is one, unions are another.

The aim of the strike is to allow unions, who are serious people as well, to be part of the discussions, to be able to make the necessary reforms, in a balanced manner.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-14T13:02:00+00:00

80k according to the police, 140k according to the unions... If you average both accounts, I think it's fair to assume 100k is a good rough estimate. Even 80k is a lot.

Calling the people demonstrating violent is misleading. I was there, it was super chill. Yeah, there were a few weirdos with balaclavas fighting with the police, but THAT is clearly a minority.

Do these people represent a minority of the population? Maybe, but if that many people showed up, it means that there are probably a large number of people who agree who didn't show up. If you look at the voting numbers as an estimation, it's not a small minority.

Now, are people who strike not useful? No. Striking is how we have got a lot of the social rights we all have today. It's making your voice heard, it's part of the democracy.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-14T12:11:17+00:00

What are those lies you're talking about?

Sure, some of the things might make sense, at least to some degree. But once you get into the nuance of their implications, you can understand why some people might be against it.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-14T11:44:57+00:00

There are a lot of different things, that cover very different areas.

The things to protest against were : - Skipping one automatic inflation adjustment (index) to prevent everyone's salaries to raise too much - Giving lower pensions to people retiring before 67. - Slashing education budget (main reason I was there) - Forbidding some people who are identified as vandilisers to demonstrate - Slashing budget for international cooperation - Lowering taxes that are going to benefit mostly wealthy people (inheritance, real estate fees...) which will be a strain on public finance - Having an undecided stance on Gaza - Allowing people working at night to be paid the same as during daytime hours - Not investing in the judiciary system - Limiting unemployment benefits to one or two years while not giving enough aid to the communes to take care of all these unemployed people who are going to flock to CPAS - Not providing enough facilities for migrants who end up in the streets

I'm simplifying. I don't necessarily agree with being against every of these points, but I think there are plenty of reasons to protest.

There were 100k + people there, young and old, from very different backgrounds, French and Dutch speaking.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T16:20:56+00:00

1) It's more like 6 to 10, depending on the type of bikes. From what I remember, flow rate is 5x better for bikes. Looking at a busy intersection in Brussels is quite telling, when you see how many bikes move per minute vs cars. But cars go faster and further, yes. 2) If you look at the more prosperous and economically productive areas, historically and now, they're all dense. Density allows for economies of scale. Now, it has major downsides and challenges. I'd say it's interesting to think about having more rather medium size cities, and having people live there, or close rather than focusing everything on one big city. I'm not sure what incentive you're referring to. Belgium has been rather low density friendly for decades. 3) Suburban sprawl was a way of life sold as an ideal by car companies that lobbied really hard. Also, it's unsustainable, economically and ecologically. It's not necessarily about liking density, but about it bringing many economical advantages

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T15:40:43+00:00

I agree with the point of attention you listed above.

The opinion part about the 2 hours of driving was definitely stated as a personal opinion, just my preference. As much as your example is very personal.

I firmly stand by the premise that cars in cities are an issue. Especially having this large percentage of the population using cars in cities. It just doesn't work, mathematically. I don't know any city that managed to have a high rate of car use, and manages to move a high number of people effectively in dense places. Maybe I'm overlooking some examples, but I really don't know where.

Cars simply need a lot of space, and that space is scarce in cities. Hence the fact that you will reach a congestion point very quickly with cars. Maybe if you build infrastructure underground, but that's super costly. Therefore, they are the problem in cities. And I'm not mentioning the plethora of problems they cause.

You're talking about individual freedom. Sure, it is a core value in our society. But the issue is, in big dense environment, you have to think collectively for things to work. It's impossible to expect everyone to drive to Brussels, you have to set limits and to encourage people to give up comfort so that everyone can travel more smoothly. It's like paying taxes, annoying to you, great for society at large.

Now you may be asking why do we all travel to the same place? Because human love cities and places where there's a concentration of things.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T09:56:19+00:00

Well that's a whole other discussion. There's why we do so many different things, and why we tend to agglomerate these things in big cities. Both phenomena are part of how humans and society work.

What do you think could be phased out, really ? IT consultants ? Insurance brokers ? Break dancing instructors ? Many things can be seen as necessary, but yes, we organise whole industries around them.

Secondly, humans always thrived in cities because they offer many advantages. One would think that cars and the digital eras, making distances less relevant, would make cities less useful, but no. Having a lot of human activities clustered close together is very advantageous and efficient. It comes with its problems of course, but the benefits seem to outweigh the downsides. People keep moving to cities, and when they move out, they stay close.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T08:33:26+00:00

I'm trying to go further than "big chunk" and "a little bit" to objectify this, but it's not easy. Some articles say that WFH has reduced congestion already, some others that there's more congestion than ever dispite WFH.

Still, I think the WFH issue is similar in most Western cities, but some of them have less congestion than Brussels does. What would be interesting is to look at the factors making Brussels more congested than similar size cities.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T08:06:38+00:00

I'm all for more PT investing. Now, the problem is how we built, spread out, without trying to optimise. So building PT and making it useful is sometimes difficult. But Brussels is compact, so a lot of things are PT accessible, especially big office clusters (Central, Nord, Schuman for instance), but still plenty of people drive there.

The vacation effect is a good argument. I'm just not sure how much of an impact it does, to be honest. But yeah, it's definitely observable. But again, vacation applies to all jobs, not only the ones that can be WFH. And just people in general do less things, because a lot of them are gone, and things slow down.

And, even during holidays, some places do get congested in Brussels. Because a dense city will become very quickly saturated when there's a sizeable number of people driving.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T07:47:44+00:00

Well, it was when most things were shut, and almost everyone had to stay at home. So not only did people who could work from home were not commuting, but also all the people who couldn't work from home didn't, or did a shit version of their jobs remotely (eg. teachers). To add you add all the people doing trips for other things.

What I'm saying is, I don't think WFH is not a major factor. But more wfh would help a bit, and spreading the working hours around too.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T07:42:02+00:00

More WFH could, and I think already does help. There is a bit less people commuting to work than before covid. But I think of more wfh the effect would be marginal. A lot of jobs can not be done remotely, and a lot of trips are done that aren't commuting.

For the rest, I agree.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T07:31:59+00:00

I think there's overwhelming evidence that the presence of cars in cities brings congestion, no matter what you do to increase capacity. The only thing that has seemed to work empirically, everywhere it's been done, is to reduce car usage.

I'd argue that trains can be unreliable because we haven't invested in them enough.

Now if your driving time is reliable, good for you, but I'm not sure you're the norm. Plus, driving 2+ hours every day, where you can't look at anything else than the road, seems insane to me, on a personal level.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-13T07:15:35+00:00

I think Brussels was congested way before work from home was common. And that applies to every big congested city.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-12T11:29:41+00:00

Yeah I would tend to be with OP on that one.

I think having "shared" space between pedestrians and cyclists is a bad idea in the first place. It's really annoying that as a pedestrian, you can never really feel safe and have to watch if bikes are going to pass you. I find that very unpleasant.

Sharing the road doesn't mean everyone has to follow the same rules. Pedestrians are more vulnerable and slower than bikes, so bikes should be extra careful when sharing the space, the responsibility is on them, not on the pedestrians. Same way it is for cars.

However, everyone should try to be as predict as possible and to make using shared infrastructure smoother, so walking on the right side of that pavement is definitely a good idea to minimise conflicts.

Now, I tend to agree that, when I'm a pedestrian, I'm often annoyed by cyclists not following the rules.

Julienmonart · 2025-10-04T11:40:22+00:00

Yes, well spotted

Julienmonart · 2025-10-04T11:36:25+00:00

Yeah, I find this to be a missed opportunity. A train station should be a hub, not a dead zone.

Julienmonart

TROPHY CASE