In normal years, Amsterdam hosts millions of tourists, such that it is easy to blame any issue on the dreaded overtourism debacle. (Of course, Covid has revealed that many problems are just that Amsterdam has too many people living there, but it is so much more satisfying to blame tourists for everything that is wrong). Amsterdam is not alone in blaming tourists for all issues, as most well-known cities throughout Europe face the same dilemmas, or at least the places that have budget airlines serving them.
One can't help but wonder if this is merely the result of a decision to keep the historic city centers alive. The "then/now" Instagram account of the city shows a constant stream of streets that have not changed in more than 100 years. If a city is a living museum, doesn't it make sense that people want to visit? Rotterdam has less of a touristic feel, likely due to the newness of everything. Who wants to visit the hip place with modern architecture when you can see a historic windmill?! The idea of keeping the charm of historic buildings alive surely had noble intentions, but would the dilemma of overtourism exist if the cities were more boring.
In Seattle, the historic tourist bit is about four blocks in downtown and a single park a short drive (or bike ride) away. The moment you are not in these two regions, it is a generally quiet and peaceful place, unless it is rush hour. Amsterdam is working towards making the city work less for tourists, but that likely just means preventing crowding in specific spots and not actually reducing the number of tourists. Partying and souvenir stores draw some people, but the canals and bikes are not going away.