Talk:Amsterdam

Housing

I note with sadness the impossibility of providing what is really extremely important information about the condition of the housing market in Amsterdam. There *is* a section on housing and it is almost empty. On a couple of occasions I have written up something on the state of affairs here; the heavily distorted rental market, the property prices bubble, the difficulty of finding places to live. It is inevitably removed. I note the most recent comment regarding removal - something along the lines of 'Amsterdam cannot levy income tax and loans have no place in this article'. The impression I am left with is a desire to remove negative information from the article. Certainly, the article by *having* a housing section which totally fails to describe profound issues is acting to mislead; equally certainly, having an article about Amsterdam which mentions *nothing* about the housing situation is a farce. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010.

I agree. Housing is a prime responsibility of the city government. Housing is regulated in the Netherlands. While the housing market in the Netherlands in general is a problem, there is a problem in particular in the cities of Amsterdam and Utrecht. Incidentally, real estate tax (onroerende zaak belasting) is one of the most important municipal taxes. Rbakels (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mayor

The information about the mayor should be updated, now that Job Cohen has resigned. Parafernalia (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Job Cohen has resigned on 12 March 2010, Lodewijk Ascher was interim mayor untill Eberhard van der Laan was sworn in on 7 July 2010. All three of them are members of the PvdA party. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Update probably required re: Stedelijk Museum

The article states "Next to the Van Gogh museum stands the Stedelijk Museum. This is Amsterdam's largest museum concerning modern art [...] This museum is also currently being renovated and expanded. The main entrance will be relocated from the Paulus Potterstraat to the Museum Square itself. It will be open again to public in 2009.[102]"

Can anyone update this? I checked the museum's website but it is in Dutch and Google translate failed for some reason. Perhaps the expansion is complete now and the museum is now open again? --bodnotbod (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not complete. However, the museum is currently open for a temporary exhibition called "the temporary stedelijk at the stedelijk museum" until January 9, 2011, when it will close again until completion of the expansion. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information

Hi,

I was skimming the economics section of the page where it said that Amsterdam was designated to be the fifth most attractive city in Europe to locate an international business. This was based on C&W 2007 European City Monitor. I had just read the 2009 European City Monitor and it demoted Amsterdam to the eight place, after London, Paris, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Brussels, Madrid and Munich. The 2008 European City Monitor already placed Amsterdam on the sixth place, by the way. If someone wants to correct this, a summary of the 2009 European City Monitor can be found at: www.europeancitiesmonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ECM_2009_Final.pdf

I have never edited a wikipedia talk page, or a wikipedia page altogether for that matter,before so you have my sincerest apologies if I did something wrong. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.58.34 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of inhabitants

The number of inhabitants is only about 760.000, see Dutch page. That is is the number of people registered in the administrative unit of the city of Amsterdam. In a densely populated country such as The Netherlands, other city boundaries are always somewhat arbitrary. For instance, suburb Amstelveen technically is a municipality in its own right, not subordinate to Amsterdam. Rbakels (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Being Dutch (I call Alkmaar my hometown) I know for sure Amsterdam has not more then 800,000 inhabitants. So maybe the numbers should indeed be corrected. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be amended but considering the way the Dutch Randstad is built (basically a large, eight-million urban conglomeration) putting a population figure on a part of it (as Amsterdam is) is virtually meaningless. The correct figure for the administrative city hovers around 750,000. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Boroughs

Since 1 May 2010 Amsterdam is no longer devided in 15 boroughs but in just only 8 (7 with their own council and Westerpoort is governt directly by the municipality). The new boroughs are:

• Centrum (Binnenstad, Grachtengordel with Jordaan, Plantage, Westelijke Eilanden and Oostelijke Eilanden)
• Noord (Tuindorp Oostzaan, Kadoelen, Oostzanerwerf, Buiksloot, Buikslotermeer, Nieuwendam and Landelijk Noord, with the villages of Schellingwoude, Durgerdam, Zunderdorp, Ransdorp, Holysloot)
• West (Spaarndammerbuurt, Staatsliedenbuurt, Frederik Hendrikbuurt, Kinkerbuurt and surroundings of Overtoom, resp. De Clercqstraat, Admiralenbuurt, surroundings Hoofdweg, Mercatorplein and Surinameplein, Landlust, Bos en Lommer, Kolenkitbuurt and village of Sloterdijk)
• Nieuw-West (Slotermeer, Geuzenveld, De Eendracht, Tuinstad Slotervaart, Overtoomse Veld, Nieuw Sloten, Tuinstad Osdorp, De Aker, dorpen Sloten and Oud Osdorp)
• Zuid (De Pijp, Museumkwartier, Duivelseiland, Willemspark, Apollobuurt, Stadionbuurt, Schinkelbuurt, Hoofddorppleinbuurt, Rivierenbuurt, Buitenveldert, Prinses Irenebuurt, Zuidas)
• Oost (surroundings Weesperzijde, Oosterparkbuurt, Dapperbuurt, Transvaalbuurt, Watergraafsmeer, Indische Buurt, Oostelijk Havengebied, Zeeburgereiland, IJburg)
• Zuidoost (Venserpolder, Bijlmer, Gaasperdam, Bullewijk, the village of Driemond)
• Westpoort (Westelijk Havengebied, Bedrijvengebied Sloterdijk, Teleport)

You can chech the site of the municipality of Amsterdam showing the boroughs here Dqfn13 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam - Capital?

Apologies if this discussion has already been had, but as far as I'm aware Amsterdam isn't the capital city. The Hague is actually the seat of government in the Netherlands and is therefore seen as the capital, despite Amsterdam being the most famous city and the country's main cultural centre.

Again, double check this, but I this this might be a genuine point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngerOfTheNorth (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm Dutch I know the truth about this myth of Amsterdam not being the capital... it is the capital!!! Emperor Napoleon or his brother king Napoleon made Amsterdam capital of the kindom of The Netherlands. It is capital since 1808. The Hague is indeed seat of government and nothing more then that. The queen is sworn in in Amsterdam (Nieuwe Kerk to be more precise. Info about this can be found here and [here] and it's stated at wikipedia too! So please, I beg you, stop thinking Amsterdam isn't the capital, please?

There are other countries with the comparible situation, Australia, South Africa and many others, just have a look at a nother wikipedia page about capital cities. Yours troughly, Dqfn13 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam IS the de jure capital of the Netherlands; however, apart from a few official occasions (most notably royal weddings, swearing in ceremonies etc.) no official government business takes place in the city (by the way, royal funerals take place in Delft, not Amsterdam). To all intents and purposes, The Hague is the Dutch de facto capital and the seat of government, all ministries, the queen's working and living quarters and all international delegations and organisations. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats all true, however, Amsterdam has HQs form several mayor international companies, is part owner of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and is by constitution the capital of the country. There are some consulates in Amsterdam as well... although most consulates and embassies are in The Hague. And don't forget, Amsterdam became capital under king Napoleons reign. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Amsterdam is NOT the capital for exactly the same reason that New York City is NOT the capital. The Americans copied the Dutch when they made Washington D.C. a separate capital from the seat of trade (which at that time was NYC). I believe it was an idea of Hamilton to make the capital in NYC and he was turned down on the basis of the Dutch experience, which (tried to) separate not only church & state, but also trade & state. Jane (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Amsterdam is the capital, The Hague is the residence (residentie)... See the constitution (Artikel 32) for an official statement regarding this. -- Buzz-tardis (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Artikel 32 just talks about swearing in the king in "hoofdstad" Amsterdam. Though artikel 32 doesn't mention Amsterdam as being the hoofdstad of the Netherlands, I guess you're right. Of course Haarlem is the "hoofdstad" of North Holland, and The Hague is the "hoofdstad" of South Holland, so I suppose just based on size alone Amsterdam had to be the "hoofdstad" of something! It does seem strange that the government isn't there though. Jane (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is that strange? The are more countries in which capital und government seat are NOT in the same city. For Example Malaysia, Bolivia, South Africa an in much african countries. --217.9.102.3 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The core problem is how one handles concepts. For most people, the concept "capital" by definition denotes the city where the government resides. In contrast, no Dutchman will ever say that The Hague is the capital of The Netherlands, not even people who are proud to be born there, like myself. Rbakels (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki takes Amsterdam in September?

Amsterdam has 7000 rijksmonuments and only some of them are on the English Wikipedia. Please see the notice about this photo scavenger hunt scheduled for September 2011. Jane (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation of the word 'Heren'

To quote from the section Cityscape and architecture/Canals: "Herengracht (where "Heren" refers to Heren Regeerders van de stad Amsterdam (ruling lords of Amsterdam)" I'm not sure 'lords' is the correct translation of 'Heren' in this context. The country was a republic at the time. Few, if any of the Heren held a hereditary title. In fact, most worked for a living, and made their fortune in trade. I propose replacing the word 'lords' with 'gentlemen' --Mzzl (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the wiktionary-entry for lord, I don't think it does have to have anything to do with hereditary titles. The meaning (of "Heren", in this context) is along the lines of defs 2, 3 or 5: "master", "authority", "owner" or "ruler". Sirs or masters would imo be almost as good a translation of "Heren" as lords. Most importantly, these people were powerful and rich, which is not directly implied by gentlemen... That term does sound (to me) of breeding and manners, not necessarily of power. But if you think it would translate better that way, by all means, go ahead. -- Buzz-tardis (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Heer would be propperly translated as Sir. Some of them had old money (in that case lord would imply), some made money by trade.
Most well known family is the Six family from current North of France. They were very powerfull, had many rulers of severall sorts (mayors, multiple indeed) and still have some power left.
The Dutch East India Company was ruled by the Heren XVII, so in their case ruler would imply. Dutch can't always be translated as easily as you think, so be carefull with what you do. Dqfn13 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that in modern English the word 'Lord' implies a feudal title, while the word 'Heer' has lost this meaning, and certainly didn't have this meaning in the case of the Heren 17 or the Heren Regeerders. Their power was derived from their wealth, made working as businessmen - an activity the European nobility of the time despised. However, I can't think of a better translation. Maybe someone can write a page on these heren one day, and elaborate on their position... --Mzzl (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you --Mzzl. This is actually what I tried to explain... but couln't find the correct words for. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Twin towns and sister cities

I see that Montreal is mentioned as a twin city, yet I don't see anything about it in the reference (#120)given: http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2321785.ece/Amsterdam_redefines_town-twinning_as_aid

Furthermore, looking at the list of official undertakings towards agreements for twin or sister cities by Montreal, I see no mention of Amsterdam either: http://www11.ville.montreal.qc.ca/sherlock2/servlet/template/sherlock%2CAfficherDocumentInternet.vm/nodocument/20146 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.218.38 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Stadsdelen

"The stadsdelen are responsible for many activities that had previously been run by the central city."

Such as? Can someone flesh this out more, add more detail? What are some things the boroughs are responsible for? This should be added to the section. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.120.101 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

I would like to open up a discussion on removing the two images added by user:Владимир Шеляпин. The image of the national monument is cluttering the history section and the WWII era is already covered with the Anne Frank House picture. The other picture of Damrak in the architecture section does not have any new styles of architecture specific to Amsterdam (17th century styles already covered with the other picture of 17th century houses and the Westerkerk so this is redundant) and there is an eyesore casino in the picture. Swimmerguy269 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree.

1) National monument is a remarkable attraction and a symbol of great events of XX centure so it is an appropriate picture in this section and should not be removed.

2) The picture of Damrak in the Architecture's section presents the typical Amsterdam architecture of XVII c.

This photo is the better than (File:Amsterdam, Westerkerk foto3 2007-10-20 13.45.JPGb) where architecture of the buildings is closed by trees.

3) Photos deleted without discussion and summarizing should be restored. --Vladimir Shelyapin 11:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Шеляпин (talk • contribs)

The three pictures added are simply attempts by user:Владимир Шеляпин to use his own images for self-promotion at the expense of the article's quality. The images should be removed for the reasons listed below:

1) The history section should try to use historical images. The National Monument picture (File:Dam Square. National Monument.JPG) is a modern picture of a modern memorial. If pictures of WWI/II memorials were appropriate for city history sections, why can I not find one picture in other prominent city wikis (London, Paris, New York City, Washington D.C., Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, etc.)? If you want to depict the city's history during World War I or World War II in picture, then find a historical picture from that era to incorporate into the article (i.e. people suffering through the Hunger Winter, the treatment of Jewish residents, the February Strike, the liberation of the city, etc.). Because of the reasons listed above, the picture should be removed.

2) This section of the article is supposed to be focused on architecture specific to Amsterdam (i.e. Medieval Dutch architecture, Dutch 17th century architecture, Architecture from the Amsterdam School, etc.), not focused on showing pictures of modern casinos and (British) Victorian architecture. Of the first four buildings in (File:Дамрак.JPG): the 1st and most prominent building in the picture is a modern casino with absolutely no architectural value to this article, 2nd is likely from the 17th/18th century and has value but it is only one building and isn't a historical monument (which is what we should be trying to depict in pictures for this section), 3rd and 4th look like they are from the eighteen hundreds and aren't styles specific to Amsterdam (the one is British Victorian). So, only one building of the first four shows architecture specific to Amsterdam. The fact that it has a casino as the first and most prominent building should warrant its removal from the page on its own. The image (File:Amsterdam, Westerkerk foto3 2007-10-20 13.45.JPGb) is better for this section because: (A) it shows the tallest church tower in the city (a historical monument) that was designed by one of the most prominent 17th century Dutch Architects, (B) it shows multiple 17th century canal houses (a style typical to Amsterdam), (C) it shows Princengract, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site because of the architecture along the canal, (D) does not show any eyesore casinos, and (E) the photograph is of overall better stylistic quality than (File:Дамрак.JPG). There may be trees covering a few of the houses in the Westerkerk photo, but you can see the majority of the first three houses through the trees. Also, there are already multiple pictures (I counted 7) throughout the entire article that show 17th century Dutch house architecture and the article doesn't really need anymore for the sake of keeping it from looking cluttered.

3) The picture (File:Muntorren.JPG) shows tourists looking at a map, which is not interesting, to say the least, and looks too staged. There are power lines all over the picture. The picture does not display the tourism industry as well as (File:KeizersgrachtLeliegracht.jpg), which is better suited for the article because it: (A) shows a canal tour boat (a major tourism industry that brings in much revenue to the city), (B) shows the Canal Ring (a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a major tourist attraction), and (C) the picture is of a higher stylistic quality than (File:Muntorren.JPG). Because of these reasons and because it is cluttering the article with an unnecessary picture, it should be removed. Swimmerguy269 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1) The National Monument is not a modern one, it was built in 1956. A national Remembrance of the Dead (Dodenherdenking) ceremony is held at the monument every year on 4 May to commemorate the casualties of World War II and subsequent armed conflicts. It is an important historic place.

2) File:Дамрак.JPG shows a mix of various architecture styles that is typical for Amsterdam.

3) File:Muntorren.JPG shows tourists looking at a map in front of the famous Amsterdam tower.--Vladimir Shelyapin 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Шеляпин (talk • contribs)

Real meaning of the name of the city.

In the beginning of the Wiki article are these words, "Amsterdam's name derives from Amstelredamme,[9] indicative of the city's origin: a dam in the river Amstel." Can anyone really believe that this river was actually dammed at this time? If so, then you or they are fools. Interesting though is another variation in the spelling of the name, which can be found to be "Amstel-redan"! A "redan" means in English and probably in other Low Dutch as a "fortress"! And what a fortress of "Islands"! Was this city of sailors, etc. or even the city or state of "Isles?" An example of the spelling as "Amstel-redan", can be found at this source or reference; ref. Goss, John., ''The mapmaker's Art. A history of Cartography"Italic text. It can also be found in the online book "History: Fiction or Science", Volume One, pages 36 and 37! It is dated to 1625 CE. Source! 96.19.152.171 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Ronald L.Hughes

Note that the difference is basically substituting an n for an m, which is a common mistake that can be made. Does either of the sources claim the word redan for fortress as the origin of the name, or do those sources only contain the alternative spelling. A lot of Dutch city/town names are of the form river-dam, so there is no reason to think the timeline would make the etymology unbelievable. CRwikiCA talk 05:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So, according to the respondant, the city was built on the River Amstel, but the spelling has changed to "Amster?", if so, why? Amstel is the name of one of the famous beers of the area, and faithfully renders the name as connected to the River. The use of the word "Redan", I propose,could easily be translated to the more English word "Redoubt", or again, a fortress, etc. Again, during the period mentioned, there existed no way to actualy "dam" the Amstel River, so the assumption that their was an actual dam of the river in those early days is obviously contrived for some unknown reason. For example, could it (the Amstel) river be dammed today? Regards, 96.19.152.171 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes