121–130 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Houten has a population of 50,000. Plenty of American cities much larger than that have the sort of human-scale features and transit you’re describing—they’re all over Portland, OR.
The place I linked (McLean/Tyson’s Corner) has about 50,000 people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try living, working, or shopping on Peachtree in Atlanta sometime.
Which one? Seriously, a few days ago I actually did a four-mile drive that at one point had me take Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to North Peachtree Road to Peachtree Road, and ended on New Peachtree Road. I didn't do this because I wanted to drive on lots of roads named Peachtree, I just wanted some ma po tofu.
https://hotspotatl.com/3699042/atlanta-how-many-peachtree-st...>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, grids are not perfect, but they are much much better than modern non-grid. Modern non-grid is not made for people, it is made for cars, and is incompatible with walking. More specifically, it is the result of optimizing for the wrong thing, it optimizes for getting cars from their houses to the highway and back, sacrificing all local connection and mobility in the process.
it's the other way around. Grids are made for cars. And buses, trucks (garbage trucks too), semis. They are ok at moving vehicles from houses to the highway, but you can walk them too. Non-grids are for people and (few) cars. They are intentionally designed to discourage non-residents from driving through them. They optimize for selling the maximum amount of land and delivering the minimum conveniently drivable surfa…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Ancient_grid_plans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_urban_planning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Houten has a population of 50,000. Plenty of American cities much larger than that have the sort of human-scale features and transit you’re describing—they’re all over Portland, OR.
The place I linked (McLean/Tyson’s Corner) has about 50,000 people.
It’s big because lots of people transit through; the bridges are high because they go over interstate 66. It’s big because because one of the main purposes of the station is to serve as a transfer point from cars to light rail.
Would you suggest that the bridges over an interstate be 10 feet high? Would you rather the rail system just not service that area?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would disagree. Grids are bad for cars because four way stops are really inefficient at processing them. You'll notice in American suburban planning that there are as few four-way stops as possible inside a subdivision. Non-grids extend the distance of a lot of trips and are thus hostile to slower non-motorized users. Driving an extra 500m is not a big deal for a car but is an additional several minutes for slower…
Four-way stops are yet another American pessimization. You won't find them in any European country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tucked away in the middle of any urban planning article is a reference to Jane Jacob's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". It's a great book that puts into words why certain neighborhoods cities feel alive and fit for humans. From mixed-use buildings to small blocks to sidewalks to parks to landmarks. I'm not going to say her insights are universal for everyone, but it might help you understand why you lik…
>I'm not going to say her insights are universal for everyone, but it might help you understand why you like that grid you like. Jacobs is really interesting. My one caveat is that I think a lot of people who applaud her helping to block Moses' highway plans for Washington Square Park would probably be less enthusiastic about her support for what was effectively community self-determination. I suspect many would call…
Now you see NIMBYs who are attached to the "modern" suburban planning regime she helped to fight off, using the same rhetoric to prevent the formation of the same kind of neighborhood she was defending, now that it's back in style.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The place I linked (McLean/Tyson’s Corner) has about 50,000 people.
The place you linked is an outer station in the broader Washington DC metro system. Millions of people live here; trying to view McLean or Tyson’s in isolation is insanity. It’s big because lots of people transit through; the bridges are high because they go over interstate 66. It’s big because because one of the main purposes of the station is to serve as a transfer point from cars to light rail. Would you suggest t…
A thing about North-American cul-de-sac suburbs that I don't understand is why there are no footpaths to take shortcuts between the dead-end streets. That would make them much less hostile to pedestrians, would allow you to visit neighbours more easily, and it seems to me that you don't lose anything. Is it just an oversight or is there some reason for that? It should even increase social safety: always an escape rou…
I'd say every neighborhood is different.
In my area, the dead-end streets do have walking path connection to the opposite dead-end streets. These also connect to the walk/bike paths that surround the neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've inspired me as well to ramble about why grids are great. Growing up in Chicago, I have a deep love of the grid. It made sense, it made navigation easy. It made addresses have real meaning . Take the address of the Vic Theater, for example: 3145 N Sheffield. It tells you just about everything you need to know. It tells you that Sheffield is a North/South street. Because it's an odd number it tells you the build…
I can't help feeling that designing transport policy around efficient addressing is perhaps not getting priorities right.
The grid layout is not the cause of Chicago’s transport issues. In fact, many of Chicago’s neighborhoods have their commercial centers where you can get groceries and just about everything else you need, without a car. Everywhere I lived in Chicago I was walking distance from a grocery store and did all my shopping each day after work, walking home from the train station. I rarely drove anywhere in the city. Buses are regular and frequent and run on most major roads (every half mile).
Chicago is not a paragon of public transit, but it’s not as bad as you seem to be making it sound and it’s not because of the addressing system.
The issues it has are mostly a matter of investment and underserved areas that mirror Chicago’s history of racist planning policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, grids are not perfect, but they are much much better than modern non-grid. Modern non-grid is not made for people, it is made for cars, and is incompatible with walking. More specifically, it is the result of optimizing for the wrong thing, it optimizes for getting cars from their houses to the highway and back, sacrificing all local connection and mobility in the process.
While the modern non-grid is "made for cars", most examples I've seen is also really inefficient at working for cars, in that most non-grid areas I've seen also suck at moving traffic. Inefficient intersections, poorly designed directional conflicts, etc. all exist heavily in a non-grid area, and the response is typically larger, even more inefficient intersections and more poorly designed directional conflicts. Some…
Postwar suburbs have more car traffic in total, but it's okay because it's not in front of your house. But once you go outside of the residential subdivisions, to the places where the traffic has been exiled, they're nightmares.