Thousands of British soldiers died to liberate this city

obviously pirates live there, not Brits

british people can be pirates too

Attached: 640px-Gheeraerts_Francis_Drake_1591_(cropped).jpg (640x561, 70.81K)

Fun fact. Arnhem is easily one of the worst cities here in terms of typical 'big city' stuff outside of the Randstad. For example it's the city with the most ISIS people in Syria ahead of Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

is eastern Netherlands significantly poorer than the western part?

They died because Operation Market Garden was a full British failure.

I like it, but it lacks trees.
In general, 15-20 floor skyscrapers are the best form for urban housing because it allows for a lot of open space while maintaining the proper population density.
The city centre, filled with 2-3 floor houses feels suffocating. No open space, no trees. Just lines of houses all around and a road in the middle.

No, it's very average. If anything it's the most average of all Dutch regions. Norf are the poorfags, west are the richfags (in a sea of poor brownoids), centre are rich and south + east are very normal.
Only exception are the furthest south which are also poorfags

>trees
stop it, you'll scare the bongs

What do you mean? There's plenty of green in this picture

Attached: uk.png (1669x869, 2.52M)

this is bullshit, people prefer old urban planning from 19th century, these areas are always the most expensive

jaywick is cheating

The mayor is a muslim lol.

Thousands died so Ahmed and his friends could get paid by you to rape your own daughters and throw them aside like trash

how do you distinguish poor and rich areas in the Netherlands? they all look the same (i.e. perfect)

norf vs souf people live here
looks like motel 6

He was only appointed last year though and it caused a big shitstorm because he's never been to Arnhem before in his life.
That said the mayor of Rotterdam is a Muslim too and he's doing an ok job for years now.

Yeah the mayor of Rotterdam is actually a pretty okay guy

You look at the cars, size of houses and size of gardens combined with proximity to a city. Also architecture is either from before WW2 (cute/beautiful) or it's from 90s onward (suburban stuff). Poorfags generally live clustered together in post-WW2 housing which are either flats or terraced houses

>these areas are always the most expensive
Obviously, they are the centre. The blocks are in the areas where the city expanded in the period between the 50s and the 90s, which is, depending on the city's expansion, usually the periphery. You are correct, however, in that most people seem to also have a preference toward neoclassical, compared to modernist architecture. From my position, they don't know how to appreciate the goods they have. I stay by my post. On the objective side, this form is superior in teems of urban planning (and, obviously, entirely inappropriate for the village, which has a much smaller desired density, considering its agricultural role). On the subjective side, I like it much more. With the same density, there is much more open space, so it feels peaceful instead of crowded.

>Also architecture is either from before WW2 (cute/beautiful) or it's from 90s onward (suburban stuff).

so do you mean nothing was built in rich cities between WW2 and the 90s?

and it's hard to blame some cities for that their old buildings were destroyed in WW2, it shouldn't affect their economic potential that much, maybe just tourism...

>so do you mean nothing was built in rich cities between WW2 and the 90s?
Yes a lot was build, namely poorfag mass housing.

>they don't know how to appreciate the goods they have.

but no one forces them to live there, they can live in commieblocks but they opt for the old areas, that still feel more livable, even if there is less empty space around (people don't really need and feel bad with, people who live in cities need to be surrounded by a bustling city, if you want to live in an empty place just move to a village).

>Obviously, they are the centre
There is also the matter of them being much more expensive to maintain, which I forgot to list as a further explanation of their comparatively larger price. The third part is preference, which you have listed.

Post WW2 saw a lot of movements of wealthy people from the cities into the 'suburbs' (often already established nearby towns) while cities were either the wealthy core and the poorfag periphery.
My city is almost entirely a rich old city centre surrounded by one layer of rich old neighborhoods surrounded by one layer of poorfag mass housing on all sides but one.

holy shit, that apartment design is nigh identical to that found in london

Attached: love me flags.jpg (1920x1080, 482.28K)

It's a fairly common design

No one forces the people who live in blocks to live in blocks either. I do not understand what you are saying, really.
If you mean to imply that people conventionally show a preference toward neoclassical architecture, I have acknowledged that already. I have said that they are mistaken, and do not appreciate what they have.

>No one forces the people who live in blocks to live in blocks either.

economic conditions often do, apartments in commieblocks are usually the cheapest

>I have said that they are mistaken, and do not appreciate what they have.

But those who can afford to live both in a commieblock and 'neoclassical' buildings and still choose the latter can't be thought of as those who can't appreciate it because they could compare it and obviously chose the house that provided higher living standards to them.

this is typical for my area

Attached: house.jpg (1611x716, 686.05K)

same, but this thread isn't about American neighborhoods, it's about Britain v Netherlands Glorious Autism Revolution

Attached: rando town.jpg (1920x1080, 558.84K)

>no source but my ass

fucking pirates...