| ▲ | sundache 2 days ago |
| You're not allowed to live there officially, but some people do. |
|
| ▲ | t0mas88 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes but those mostly live landside, there are holiday homes at the edge of the lake as well. There was a plan to allow permanent use, but I think it now changed to only allowing it for people that already live there and no new cases. |
| |
| ▲ | CalRobert 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Seems a shame in a housing crisis. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The housing crisis in the west is largely not a lack of land or places to build, but an issue of building being too onerous for a variety of reasons. Inaccessible lake homes being allowed to be used as a primary residence will not fix it. | | |
| ▲ | keiferski 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah earlier this year I biked from Utrecht to Amsterdam, and there are huge empty lots in the southeast part of Amsterdam. I don’t mean “charming natural areas,” I mean wide open lots next to gas stations and shopping malls. |
| |
| ▲ | retired 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is a reason for it. Infrastructure, access roads, public transit stops, build quality, utilities. The Netherlands has very high standards for homes and the direct surroundings and these homes do not meet those criteria. You would also have significantly more emissions if people started living there which would go against the emission limits for nearby nature. | |
| ▲ | analog31 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let me guess, no sewage disposal. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > You're not allowed to live there officially why not? |
| |
| ▲ | gitaarik 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Because they're meant for recreational purposes, and those places usually don't adhere to strict guidelines the NL has for "living homes". But since the housing crisis, they have been actually allowing it in some places. |
|
