6 ms·

American cities aren't optimized for navigation, they are optimized for sales. A parcel of terrain is easier to sell when it's not that different from the one a

American cities aren't optimized for navigation, they are optimized for sales. A parcel of terrain is easier to sell when it's not that different from the one alongside it. Selling a house is also easier when there's no quirky features or strange floorplans.

eesmith 8y ago
I think it's hard to look at a grid system and say that it's optimized for sales. US urban planning in the late 1800s and early 1900s "emphasized a grid plan, partly out of extensive reliance on foot, horse and streetcars for transportation. In such earlier urban development, alleys were included to allow for deliveries of soiled supplies, such as coal, to the rear of houses which are now heated by electricity, piped natural gas or oil." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)#Suburban_use_and_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)#Suburban_use... Sure, you might argue that people purchased those houses because of the benefits of the grid system, and hence (indirectly) optimized for sales. But that same Wikipedia page points out that post-war construction in the US emphasized cul-de-sac and crescent streets. > "Real estate developers prefer culs-de-sac because they allow builders to fit more houses into oddly shaped tracts of land and facilitate building to the edges of rivers and property lines.[10] They also choose these discontinuous network patterns of cul-de-sac and loop streets because of the often significant economies in infrastructure costs compared to the grid plan. ... The desirability of the cul-de-sac street type among home buyers is implied by the evidence that they often pay up to a 20% premium for a home on such a street, according to one study.[10] This could be because there is considerably less passing traffic, resulting in less noise and reduced actual or perceived risk, increasing the sense of tranquility." In other words, cul-de-sacs optimize sales, not grid patterns, and "quirky features or strange floorplans" of non-grid plats don't seem to be a problem - quite the opposite. I believe Joseph Smith's 'Plat of the City of Zion' influence on Salt Lake City's shows that the grid system of SLC was not specifically optimized for sales, and indeed was partially designed for navigation. At the very least, you know were you are with respect to the Temple.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Cul-de-sacs decrease criminality too. If you go down a cul-de-sacs to do recon, you look out of place.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    The Wikipedia page has several paragraphs on "this disputed issue", describing both pro- and con- views. One cited paper concludes "relative affluence and the number of neighbours has a greater effect than either being on a cul-de-sac or being on a through street".
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      so if living on a cul-de-sac predicts for relative affluence, it may be a proxy for lower crime?
      - eesmith 8y ago
        ... no? At least, that's not what I inferred from the Wikipedia article. If you want to dig into the details, the report is at https://spacesyntax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hillier-Sahbaz_An-evidence-based-approach_010408.pdf https://spacesyntax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hillier-S... . A quick search finds the following in the conclusion section: > Cul de sacs or grids? > The principle that larger the numbers of dwellings on the street segment reduces the risk of burglary, applies both to cul de sacs and grid like layouts. Small number of dwellings in a cul de sac are vulnerable, especially if the dwelling are affluent.
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    That doesn't compute for me - at least not in an urban environment. You're safest on the street where there are the most people; and criminals aren't going to try to break into a building if there's an audience. High foot traffic leads to safe cities. Cul-de-sacs discourage foot traffic.
    - 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

I think it's hard to look at a grid system and say that it's optimized for sales. US urban planning in the late 1800s and early 1900s "emphasized a grid plan, partly out of extensive reliance on foot, horse and streetcars for transportation. In such earlier urban development, alleys were included to allow for deliveries of soiled supplies, such as coal, to the rear of houses which are now heated by electricity, piped natural gas or oil." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)#Suburban_use_and_benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)#Suburban_use... Sure, you might argue that people purchased those houses because of the benefits of the grid system, and hence (indirectly) optimized for sales. But that same Wikipedia page points out that post-war construction in the US emphasized cul-de-sac and crescent streets. > "Real estate developers prefer culs-de-sac because they allow builders to fit more houses into oddly shaped tracts of land and facilitate building to the edges of rivers and property lines.[10] They also choose these discontinuous network patterns of cul-de-sac and loop streets because of the often significant economies in infrastructure costs compared to the grid plan. ... The desirability of the cul-de-sac street type among home buyers is implied by the evidence that they often pay up to a 20% premium for a home on such a street, according to one study.[10] This could be because there is considerably less passing traffic, resulting in less noise and reduced actual or perceived risk, increasing the sense of tranquility." In other words, cul-de-sacs optimize sales, not grid patterns, and "quirky features or strange floorplans" of non-grid plats don't seem to be a problem - quite the opposite. I believe Joseph Smith's 'Plat of the City of Zion' influence on Salt Lake City's shows that the grid system of SLC was not specifically optimized for sales, and indeed was partially designed for navigation. At the very least, you know were you are with respect to the Temple.

jacobush 8y ago
Cul-de-sacs decrease criminality too. If you go down a cul-de-sacs to do recon, you look out of place.
- eesmith 8y ago
  The Wikipedia page has several paragraphs on "this disputed issue", describing both pro- and con- views. One cited paper concludes "relative affluence and the number of neighbours has a greater effect than either being on a cul-de-sac or being on a through street".
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    so if living on a cul-de-sac predicts for relative affluence, it may be a proxy for lower crime?
    - eesmith 8y ago
      ... no? At least, that's not what I inferred from the Wikipedia article. If you want to dig into the details, the report is at https://spacesyntax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hillier-Sahbaz_An-evidence-based-approach_010408.pdf https://spacesyntax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hillier-S... . A quick search finds the following in the conclusion section: > Cul de sacs or grids? > The principle that larger the numbers of dwellings on the street segment reduces the risk of burglary, applies both to cul de sacs and grid like layouts. Small number of dwellings in a cul de sac are vulnerable, especially if the dwelling are affluent.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  That doesn't compute for me - at least not in an urban environment. You're safest on the street where there are the most people; and criminals aren't going to try to break into a building if there's an audience. High foot traffic leads to safe cities. Cul-de-sacs discourage foot traffic.
  - 8y ago