Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Decline of the City Grid

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#151

Post by csomar »

rayiner wrote: post #113
jcoder wrote: post #104

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 a probably because it's a popular place (I've been there but only because it's close to DC and has the metro connection!). It seems that there is significant shopping, medical and corporate places there too (Capital One for instance).

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#152

Post by csomar »

rayiner wrote: post #127
Armisael16 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Houten is just 50 km from Amsterdam, while Tysons is 25 km from DC. Both are distinct urban areas within a larger urban sprawl: 4.5 million people in 1,400 square miles for DC, 7 million people in 2,400 square miles for the Randstad.

The comparison is still not fair. You can comparing a road-intersection with a high-intersection. Of course, the highway bridge/tunnel is going to be more massive for pedestrians.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#153

Post by bernawil »

bobthepanda wrote: post #139
bernawil wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> four-way stops are really inefficient at processing them This is a non-issue. Where I'm from, grid neighbourhoods are the norm and stop signs are not a thing. First, the grid spreads out traffic inside it. Then, you're supposed to drive at around 35 km/h. Last, narrower/streets with more traffic tend to be one way. Most of the driving takes place at arteries, still part of the grid. Those have semaphores. Also, gri…

non-grids can have all of those things as well. American suburban streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons. America is also a country in which road engineers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars eliminating mere seconds at a single intersection. In that context, a four way stop is "inefficient" or dangerous and as many internal intersections as possible i…

Grids have more parking because there's more streets and therefore more curb, it's not a matter of width. Also getting off the arterial road and into the grid neighbourhood looking for parking is more feasible because in a non-grid you have to track back your steps all the distance you traveled back to your destination, while in a grid it's way more likely there's a shorter path back through the grid.

> streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons.

If I had to guess, because they're hostile to non-residents and they are optimizing for residential property values.

Grids with free parking are welcoming to non-residents and optimizing for business revenue.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#154

Post by pronlover723 »

I'm not a fan of grid cities. Yes, they are easier to navigate, but I find them boring. It's much more fun to explore Tokyo's twists (west side) than Osaka's grid. Paris, London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Istanbul, ... much more fun that most of them are not on grids.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#155

Post by midoridensha »

lifefeed wrote: post #73
beej71 wrote: post #5

[freewheeling unplanned thinking-out-loud ahead] I like grids... but I'm not sure why. I live at the edge of the old grid section in my town. West of me, it turns into modern non-grid. Which I don't like. But do I not like it because of the lack of grid? Or because of the new modern wall-to-wall cookie-cutter construction? I look at an old organically-grown city and it's fascinating to me; its ties to the distant pas…

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…

Jane should come here to Tokyo to see what a city that's largely fit for humans is like in modern times. Zoning rules here are basically the opposite of America's, and walkability is the norm in most parts of the city (with excellent public transit connecting the most popular districts).

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#156

Post by DangitBobby »

markfenton wrote: post #87
gpvos wrote: post #75

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…

There is a view held by some that they actually decrease safety by providing somewhere for undesirables to loiter, or a means of escape after committing crime, or simply attract more foot traffic to an area than a cul-de-sac therfore increasing the chance of opportunistic crime. I suspect this is a situation where the benefits of the shortcuts to society may be greater than the possible downsides to the nearby homeow…

This strikes me as a post-hoc justification. Seems more likely to me that they just didn't think of it, or don't care enough to actually implement it.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#157

Post by midoridensha »

spikeagally wrote: post #3
michaelt wrote: post #2

> In London cab drivers have to spend up to four years learning the street network before they can get around without a map. Chicago or New York taxi drivers can achieve much the same thing in a day. These days this is less about being able to navigate, and more a way to limit the number of taxi licenses without limiting the number of taxi licenses. Many other cities impose a numerical limit, but London has never had…

I think knowledge of the city is still much better than relying on GPS. The gap may have narrowed significantly but I'd still rather by driven by someone who knows the streets. One example I regularly encounter is Uber drivers following GPS down these extremely narrow (6ft I believe) bollard lined connecting roads. They are easily avoided if you know the area but every Uber driver will take them while we both hold ou…

The problem here is that the GPS system doesn't have enough local knowledge encoded into it yet.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#158

Post by refurb »

rayiner wrote: post #127
Armisael16 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Houten is just 50 km from Amsterdam, while Tysons is 25 km from DC. Both are distinct urban areas within a larger urban sprawl: 4.5 million people in 1,400 square miles for DC, 7 million people in 2,400 square miles for the Randstad.

One look at Google maps tells me they are nowhere close to comparable. Houten is surrounded by farms and cows, next to Utrect which has a population of half a million.

Tysons is next to a ring road for DC, and the greater DC-Arlington-Alexandria metro area has 6.6M.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#159

Post by refurb »

cperciva wrote: post #51
freeqaz wrote: post #48

I recently visited Vancouver, BC (Canada) and I was blown away by their urban development planning. They have tons of density, but the city doesn't look dystopian because they've mixed different styles of building well. What this manifests in reality is a less car-dependent city that's extremely walkable (they also have amazing walking paths all over). Overall, I just found the experience to be amazing in comparison…

I'm guessing you were downtown? From roughly 15th south -- the majority of the city -- pretty much all you get is suburban wasteland of detached homes.

Yup. Look at google maps of the lower Mainland. Tiny downtown core of Vancouver and nothing but suburbs that stretch out as far as the eye can see.

Re: The Decline of the City Grid

#160

Post by [deleted] »

bee_rider wrote: post #32

How do you even give directions in Chicago? It seems horribly confusing — go down the straight road, once you’ve passed 15 intersections turn left blah blah. No way to keep track of that kind of junk. Boston is much easier to navigate and get direction, go until you hit the triangular intersection, take the left branch, you’ll eventually find a rotary has brushed up on your road, take that etc etc. Each intersection…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN