ABSTRACT
Amsterdam is doing well. The population is growing, the economy is picking up, and prosperity is increasing. Since Glaeser’s Triumph of the City (2011) and Barber’s If Mayors ruled the World (2013) the self-assurance of policymakers and administrators has grown with respect to the future of the city. So much so, in fact, that success seems a foregone conclusion. So much so that little attention is given to the downside of success. So much so that it is hard to initiate a discussion about which future city is the most desirable. Even if the city were to have a population of two million and free zones for start-ups in the foreseeable future, and were to receive many more tourists – meaning that it remains successful in the eyes of many – this discussion remains relevant. Currently, it is too easy to think that all ongoing changes (new lifestyles, developments in the housing market and labour market) will by themselves lead the way to the optimum city of the future. However, these changes can lead to overexploitation: the city and urban society can also lose much that is valuable.
