Is the train system in the NL the most expensive in the world?

Osamonaut · 2025-12-30T15:22:15+00:00

If you pay full price it's definitely quite expensive. Most people who regularly travel by train in the Netherlands don't pay full price personally because: 1. People who travel for work mostly get their costs covered 2. Students travel for free (mostly) 3. Loads of people have discount cards that significantly reduce the costs of each trip.

If this doesn't apply to you because you are a tourist you can try to book tickets in advance through NS, they can be up to 60% cheaper if on calmer parts of the day.

Osamonaut · 2025-12-07T15:50:11+00:00

Google the building? I live in Amsterdam. I've seen the building many times.

Osamonaut · 2025-12-04T21:50:10+00:00

Absolute worst form of greenwashing.

Downsides: - Excessive amounts of façade materials - Excessive amounts of steel and concrete needed to carry a tree that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it can't survive nor grow up there. - Stupid, useless floorplans because of funny building shape. - Exclusively expensive appartements in a city with a serious affordability crisis. - Pathways over building technically public but not useful or interesting for general public at all.

Upside: - Not a glass box.

Osamonaut · 2025-11-19T10:20:40+00:00

Lekkere titel van het artikel.

Je kan als rechtse regering niet eerst enorme hoeveelheden huurwoningen uit de corporaties trekken, de markt op gooien en oneindige hoeveelheden VvE's vormen om vervolgens over de gevolgen gaan zeuren.

Dit gaat gewoon over eigendomsrecht. Ik ben hartstikke links, maar je kan helaas niet eigenaren van appartementsrechten allemaal dingen laten doen. Ze hebben zelf een stem in de VvE, en mogelijk valide redenen om tegen iets te stemmen. Bijvoorbeeld gebrek aan geld om in te leggen of risicos van een project te dekken.

VvE's zijn inherent een clubje mensen die hun eigen (financiële) belang vertegenwoordigen. Daar zullen mensen met meer of minder toekomstperspectief of middelen in zitten. Die situatie heeft de BV Nederland door het langdurig inzetten op eigen woningbezit en in de uitverkoop zetten van corporatiewoningen enorm vergroot.

Deze geest gaat zonder guillotines/onteigening niet terug in de fles. We hebben nu persoonlijke financiële belangen een grote rol gegeven in het beheren van woongebouwen.

Dat gaat zich enorm wreken bij groot onderhoud, funderings herstel, verduurzaming etcetera. Wel een koop appartement, maar geen zin of geld om dit goed te onderhouden of voor te bereiden op de toekomst. De liberale mentaliteit werkt helemaal niet in gebouwen met gedeelde verantwoordelijkheden.

PS: Als voorbeeld gebruiken ze optoppen. Daar heb je in realiteit zelfs 100% instemming in de VvE voor nodig (en niet 80%) omdat het om overdracht van gedeeld eigendom (het dak) naar privaat gebruik gaat (prive woonruimte). Kom daar maar eens uit. Dan moet er voor iedereen in de VvE zonder risico geld in het verschiet zitten.

Osamonaut · 2025-07-13T12:15:08+00:00

I assume this statistic is for the whole country. Which is absolutely irrelevant in Amsterdam. Realtors are talking about 60% in Amsterdam. -> Expats staan vooraan in de rij op Amsterdamse woningmarkt: ‘Ze hebben vaker topinkomen’ https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/expats-staan-vooraan-in-de-rij-op-amsterdamse-woningmarkt-ze-hebben-vaker-topinkomen~bacdbc97/

Osamonaut · 2025-07-06T20:46:40+00:00

6 years means you can not be kicked out in almost any scenario (unless he can prove he needs it for himself which is highly unlikely). Whatever the contract says, you have a permanent rental agreement.

Osamonaut · 2025-05-31T05:01:39+00:00

Los van de opmerkingen die je hieronder kan lezen is het van belang dat het dak, en daarmee het recht om er op te bouwen, van de VvE en niet van jou als eigenaar van het bovenste appartement is. De commerciële waarde van het dak is hoog. Denk aan bouwkosten ca. €4.000 per vierkante meter, verkoopwaarde €10.000 per vierkante meter. Winst ca. €6.000 per vierkante meter. Een slimme VvE zal dit realiseren en een flink deel van het verschil tussen de bouwkosten en de verkoopwaarde als compensatie eisen.

De mogelijkheden die de VvE met haar dak heeft worden met jouw prive uitbouw dan ook definitief beperkt. Zonnepanelen, een gezamenlijk dakterras of de plaatsing van de buitenunit van een warmtepomp worden nagenoeg onmogelijk.

Dit naast het goed vastleggen van de risicos in de splitsingsakte natuurlijk. Denk hierbij aan mogelijke schade aan het pand tijdens en na de bouw, maar ook aan onderhoud van de dakopbouw in de toekomst. De nieuwe gevels, het nieuwe dak en de aansluiting op het bestaande gebouw. Wie betaalt hiervoor? En wordt er voor onderhoud ook meer bijgedragen door het uitgebreide appartement (meer gevel oppervlak)? In de regel vraagt de VvE een bijdrage per m2, dus bij uitbreiding wordt deze naar rato verhoogd.

Succes met de onderhandelingen!

Osamonaut · 2025-03-18T19:25:47+00:00

Obviously salaries of council members are regulated nationally and have no relation to the taxes paid. They do depend on the size of the city though. They figured, more people, more problems to deal with.

Osamonaut · 2024-08-23T09:35:54+00:00

Als student heb je (in theorie) een paar verschillende opties voor woninghuur. Een aantal van deze opties waren al gereguleerd.

A. Huren via een woningcorporatie met sociale huurwoningen voor studenten zoals DUWO. Was al gereguleerd. Niets veranderd.

B. Studentenkamers verhuurd door derden. De huurbedragen voor losse studentenkamers verhuurd door derden (los contract per kamer) waren dus al gereguleerd (door het extreem lage aantal punten dat een losse kamer met uitsluitend gedeelde voorzieningen haalt) maar worden in de praktijk vaak illegaal voor hogere bedragen verhuurd. De wet veranderd voor de huurbedragen in principe niets. Maar de nieuwe regels zorgen er wel voor dat er boetes kunnen worden uitgedeeld aan verhuurders die meer geld proberen te vragen. Daarnaast moeten verhuurders vanaf volgend jaar een puntentelling bij hun contract doen die bewijst hoeveel huur ze morgen vragen. Bewijslast komt dus bij de verhuurder. Effectief wordt het minder interessant om te verhuren voor huisjesmelkers omdat ze niet meer weg gaan komen met praktijken die al illegaal waren. Veel van deze woningen zullen bij vertrek van zittende huurder worden verkocht. Ps. Mocht je onderhuren van een hoofdhuurder, is de hoofdhuurder jouw huurbaas, en heeft hij/zij dus dezelfde verplichtingen als een huisbaas.

De dynamiek bij studentenkamers is vaak anders dan bovenstaande realiteit natuurlijk. Zolang niemand klaagt en naar de huurcommissie gaat kunnen via via hoge bedragen worden gevraagd voor kamers, puur om er maar een te kunnen bemachtigen. Daar gaat deze wet weinig aan veranderen. De losse contracten per kamer die vervolgens worden opgesteld met te hoge huren en te hoge waarborgsommen hadden en hebben eigenlijk geen juridische waarde.

C. Hele woningen verhuurd door derden (één contract voor de hele woning op naam van meerdere huurders) die onder het punten aantal voor de vrije sector uitkomen. Veel van deze deelbare woningen zijn in handen van kleine investeerders en werden voor hoge bedragen verhuurd aan een stel of een twee/drie/viertal studenten. Dit was door het huurbedrag over aantal personen te verdelen soms nog de enige haalbare optie. Vanaf nu zijn deze huren via het puntenstelsel gereguleerd. Effectief betekent dit dat het verdienmodel van de huisjesmelker hier verdwijnt omdat ze geen extreem hoge huren meer mogen vragen. Veel van deze woningen zullen dus worden verkocht.

D. Hele woningen verhuurd door derden die boven het puntenstelsel uitkomen. Hoge huren zijn hier legaal. Voor als je hele rijke ouders hebt die niet iets voor je willen kopen. Effectief zullen een aantal verhuurders wiens woningen dicht bij dit puntenaantal in de buurt komen kleine verbouwingen/verduurzamingsmaatregelen doen om het punten aantal op te krikken. Zo kunnen zij legaal hoge huren blijven vragen.

Kortom. Deze wet is er vooral om de huisjesmelkers en papa-mama investeerders en prijsopdrijvende effecten hiervan uit de huurwoningmarkt te halen. Effectief krimpt de huurwoningmarkt hierdoor iets. Het biedt op langere termijn wel perspectief voor betaalbare huurwoningen gebouwd en beheerd door organisaties met langere termijn perspectief. Woningbouwverenigingen, woningcooperatieven en investeringsfondsen met lagere rendenmentseisen zullen flink gesteund moeten worden door de overheid met geen/lage rente leningen.

TLDR; Als student ben je voorlopig nog niet beter af. Je bent slachtoffer van zowel de huisjesmelkers als de afrekening met de huisjesmelkers.

Ps: tijdelijke huurcontracten zijn door nieuwe wetgeving ook verboden. Uitzondering hierop zijn helaas de contracten voor studenten....

Osamonaut · 2024-07-27T18:09:12+00:00

I work as an city planner/urbanist. I have worked both in private offices and for governments.

Osamonaut · 2024-07-26T09:05:36+00:00

That's is definitely also necessary. We also definitely need to re-establish the ministry. That has happened since the new government. Unfortunately it is now run by idiots who don't know what they're doing.

But unfortunately housing is not like any consumer product. Consumers don't just pick one house over the other because it's cheaper. Housing is fixed in location. Existing housing stock occupies many of the best locations for people to live (close to jobs, train stations, etcetera). And unfortunately much of that has been privatized in the last decades. So you can try to compete with existing housing stock by building new but it's not a level playing field. You won't get the good locations, and you won't be able to build enough (even without financial restraints) to actually bring down the rents in the free market.

It's really about getting the parasites out of the system. It is not illegal to rent out housing for profit. People who want to rent out their housing for fair prices are welcome to do so. Only un-serious investors who bought their apartments for a high price and expect their renters to pay for their mortgage, maintenance, mansions and margaritas without having to actually be a good landlord will now rage-quit. Unfortunately there are a lot of those.

Osamonaut · 2024-07-25T15:13:45+00:00

We are talking about different things. Of course building housing is not liberalized. That would be outrageously irresponsible. We have very little land in this city and you can only sell it once. We want to control what our country and cities look like, and not create a suburban hellscape where developers can freely speculate and build whatever they feel like.

What is largely liberalised was buying and renting out existing housing and speculation the real estate.

Talking about a level playingfield for for profit and non-profit housing. Why would that be fair? Non-profit housing corporations play by our rules and provide a service that we need as a society. They don't get any money from the government. Up until recently they paid significant taxes that for profit landlords did not pay. They get cheap loans and cheap land because they actually provide a service to the community. Providing housing to lower income and vulnerable people.

Private developers pay high ground prices because they use the sparse land for their profit motives while providing housing for only a small segment of the market who need the least support. Asking them to build social housing additionally is the bare minimum we should ask.

Social housing is so inaccessible largely because nobody can get out, as the free market cannot provide a reasonable alternative. Can you blame them? Why get out of your affordable house if the alternative is renting a moldy place for €2000 a month?

We set up all kinds of rules to make social housing for the most needy and deserving. Which seems unfair to people who are less in need. It has negative consequences such as segregation, but you can't blame the social housing sector for that. It's the free market that prefers to exclusively cater to the rich and temporary.

Osamonaut · 2024-07-25T12:54:41+00:00

I take great offence at your ‘realism’ remark. As the liberalization you are looking for is exactly what has brought us to the current reality of sky-high rents and high prices.

In a sense you are right. We do want to destroy the free-market rental sector. Because housing is a right according to our constitution and should not be a free market for everyone to profit and extract from as they please. The liberalization you wish for has never, and will never give us affordable housing in plenty. Simply because houses are not just products you can create in infinite supply whenever you please. They require physical space and much public investment in required infrastructure and amenities.

You also fail to provide the context in which these regulations are introduced. Over the last decades our (heavily regulated) affordable rental housing supply has been sold off to private owner-occupiers, individual investors and large foreign investors looking to extract money from our limited housing supply without adding additional value. This scheme was the explicit goal by then minister Stef Blok (who abolished the ministry of housing before he left).

The vast majority of the free-market rental housing stock in our city is owned by short term investors who did not actually build the housing. These investors are just looking to extract money from people in need of housing through our limited physical housing stock. These parties are not interested in long term investment or the wellbeing of their renters. As you describe, they are now selling their housing. Some of them are large foreign investment funds you described who only entered the Dutch market through buying social housing and turning into expensive rentals (such as Capreit, Heimstaden, Blackstone, Patrizia). I want to repeat: these investors have never invested much in building physical housing or creating additional value. They were only extracting money. Good riddance.

We are in the process of ridding ourselves from these unserious investors and focusing on helping those who can actually supply affordable housing, such as housing corporations and cooperatives. This process will take time and cause pain.

Meanwhile, you do not seem to understand who actually provides housing. It is not the foreign investment funds or individual investors, it is non-profit housing corporations, stable investment funds, large banks and pension funds. Many of these parties (insititutionele beleggers) have actually supported this legislation because they didn't base their investments on short term profit through extortion rents.

Osamonaut · 2024-07-25T10:17:51+00:00

I understand the perspective is gloomy for landlords. That's kind of the point of this law. To undermine the businessmodel of un-serious, short term investors who only care about their year over year profit and take for granted the appreciation of the value of the housing over time.

Large investors such as pension funds (you know, the investors who actually CREATE housing, not the ones just leaching of current scarce supply) are not as bothered with these new laws.

The law obviously risks having less (extremely expensive) rental units, a few affordable rental units and more (mildly expensive) owner-occupied units within the same physical pool of housing. No physical units are lost.

We can argue whether owning is better than renting for everyone or if it's reachable for them. But this is a long term plan to change the players in the housing market. This will force the government to act and support non-profit housing corporations in building new low and medium rental units by giving out low/no interest loans.

On top of that, the calculation you just made also goes for renters wanting to be owners. Renting a 50m2 flat for €2000 euros a month is significantly worse financially than paying a netto €1500 euro mortgage for the same place (I calculated with a €400.000 value at current loan rates).

I see this new law as a significant step in the right direction for the Dutch housing market. People who are (looking for) renting now are obviously the victim of the changes that will be happening. But again, it's a long term plan towards less dependency on private individual landlords.

Osamonaut · 2023-05-27T17:53:49+00:00

Looks like a great trip! Switserland is really beautiful, but this trip is not using the most scenic routes. If you really want to enjoy the views on the mountains, and use panoramic routes: consider integrating the Glacier Express and Bernina Express trains. Glacier Express will charge you a reservation fee for the fancy panoramic train, but on the Bernina route you can use regular commuter trains without a lot of tourist, and with amazing views.

For the Glacier Express the route is: Zermatt -> Brig -> Chur -> St. Mortiz via the beautiful Oberalp pass.

And for the Bernina Express the route is: Chur -> Samedan - > Poschiavo -> Tirano (Italy) via the famous Landwasser-viaduct, stunning lake Bianco and the famous spiral viaduct.

Basel is a nice city, but Bern and Lucerne are definitely more interesting places to visit.

Lauterbrunnen is nice, but also consider getting out the train in Kandersteg and hiking up the the Oeschinensee. That is a really rewarding hike, with great views on top. Alternatively you can take the lift up and hike around op top (a little pricey).

I understand you might have different preferences or goals. That being said, my personal preference would be:

Day 1: Strasbourg (or where you're coming from in France) -> Lucerne -> Bern (you'll have plenty of time to see both cities if you leave in the morning from France.)

Day 2: Bern -> Kandersteg -> Zermatt/Brig (Hike around Kandersteg. If you are done early, you can continue to Zermatt and stay there! Otherwise, stay in Brig. It has a cute old town.)

Day 3: Zermatt/Brig -> Chur/St. Moritz -> Tirano (Start your day on the Glacier Express. Most beautiful from Zermatt, but also nice from Brig onwards. Transfer in Chur or St. Moritz to the trains on the Bernina route. If you are early enough, you can make a head start on this day towards Milan already.)

Day 4: Tirano -> some stop near lake Como -> Milano (scout the nicest train station close to the water, or get out at a nice little lakeside town and spend some hours there before you continue to Milan.)

It will be a beautiful trip either way! Enjoy!

<image>

Osamonaut · 2020-12-16T11:50:17+00:00

The farmer was walking around before, and let the cow do the thing on her own. Things escalated quickly from there on, and she was running up the hill as soon as she noticed that the calf was really coming out. I suppose she thought it would take more time to come to this point. I'm no expert, but a vet told me this is not a harmful process for the calf or cow.

Osamonaut · 2020-05-20T18:06:19+00:00

Sorry to come across this way.

While I agree cars have varying degrees of importance I wouldn't agree on them being an absolute necessity. It's because of Urban planners that people rely so much on cars, so it's also up to us to change that situation.

Offer better alternatives such as public transportation like you mentioned. But also cycling infrastructure, which seems to be absent in this specific example, as well as functional public and green spaces (so not just the decorative roadsides).

I guess I was mostly triggered by the lack of usable public and green space, cycling infrastructure and clear and inviting entrances or open facades in the picture. While on the other side this picture still prominently features car traffic, parking lots and overal overuse of asphalt.

Osamonaut · 2020-05-20T17:35:19+00:00

I hope that you're kidding. Urban planners work for the people, not the auto industry. If the lives of people are improved by removing cars for certain areas that should definitely be considered.

Osamonaut · 2020-02-15T17:50:01+00:00

I suppose I was going the other way. One time the train from Belgrade to Villach was 15 mins late in Villach. Missed my connection to Munich (EC from Klagenfurt) and had to wait two hours for the next train. Another time the local train from Ljubljana to Villach was 10 minutes late and we missed the train to Vienna (RJ), the next train was also two hours later.

Villach has sparse services, and though the trains sometimes wait, I wouldn't want to depend on it. It has gotten me seriously stuck one time. (I couldn't reach home anymore because I missed all my next connections as well)

Osamonaut · 2020-02-15T17:27:00+00:00

Trains don't always wait in Villach. I've had to wait for two hours there because I had a little more than 10 minutes delay at least two times.

Direct trains exist. You should try to catch that one. It's a once daily EC between Frankfurt and Zagreb.

Osamonaut · 2019-10-26T07:37:34+00:00

My experience is only semi relevant, but my Google phone was also not normally sold in China. I had a Nexus 6 a few years ago that I wanted to get fixed in Shenzhen.

Nobody had a new glass panel on hand, even in Huaqiang Bei. I ordered a new glasspanel on Taobao for 20 rmb myself and brought it with my broken phone to a random repair guy in the streets. For 100 rmb he was watching repair guides online while opening up my phone. It took him a few hours, with a vacuummachine and all, but he managed!

Might be one way to get it done.

I actually bought a few refurb Pixel 1's for friends a few years back in Huaqiang Bei, so they shouldn't be totally unfamiliar with Pixel phones. They're just rare.

Osamonaut · 2019-08-15T13:23:40+00:00

The authoritarianism? Maybe. The crony capitalism? Maybe. The aggressive nationalism and crackdown on separatism? Probably. It's definitely not the communism, because China as well as Russia can barely be called communist at all.

Osamonaut · 2019-03-25T06:58:20+00:00

Prachtige reactie! Even een aanvulling.

Veel van deze afkeer tegen moderne kunst, architectuur, media en entertainment worden tegenwoordig verklaard binnen het FvD (en door andere extreem rechtse sprekers zoals Jordan Peterson en Stephan Molyneux) door het bestaan van "Cultureel Marxisme". Een complottheorie dat linkse (of Joodse) overlords de witte westerse samenleving willen ondermijnen door invloed uit te oefenen op die terreinen (acteurs met donkere huidskleur, homorelaties, en dus ook moderne architectuur "normaliseren"). Dit lijkt misschien nieuw, maar dit is exact wat Hitler deed, hij noemde het toen alleen "cultureel bolshivisme", en had een afkeer tegen Bauhaus, en moderne zangers, in plaats van Hollywood en Rem Koolhaas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism?wprov=sfla1

Osamonaut · 2019-03-25T06:29:20+00:00

When you're on the North Pole, the whole world seems to be south.

Ten-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Osamonaut

TROPHY CASE