4 ms·

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 incompat

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.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
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. Sometimes the lack of space that a grid typically causes actually brings better traffic engineering. But it's definitely correct that the modern non-grid is definitely not suitable to walking/biking, but that's more due to zoning and centralization of systems (e.g. schools) rather than grid vs. non-grid. It's not like a cul-de-sac for a car couldn't contain an off-shoot to a pedestrian/biking path that cuts a trip significantly for a non-car.
- closeparen 4y ago
  It sits in a kind of weird contradiction, because although one of its characteristics is that it's really only practical to navigate by car (and thus generates traffic!), one of its key design goals is to minimize the car traffic near people's houses. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQw05Mr63E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQw05Mr63E
davidw 4y ago
Grids are not perfect, but they are "pretty good" in a lot of different circumstances, and far more adaptable than other street patterns. Living on a cul-de-sac is nice in some ways, but it doesn't do well at all with change or adaptation. Grids were "pretty good" with horses and buggies, pretty good with cars, pretty good with eBikes, and will probably be pretty good with whatever the future holds, rather than being "perfect" for any one way of getting around.
anon291 4y ago
They're not even made for cars. With the non-grids in many suburbs, you have to drive for more than five minutes just to reach something that ought to be a two minute walk or a 30 second drive. Endless cul-de-sacs and branches make it unfriendly to everything.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  Modern best practice is to have permeable neighbourhoods, with lots of active transport routes between nodes. Cul-de-sacs should only be cul-de-sacs for cars, not people.
bernawil 4y ago
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 surface so other people don't drive near your house but you can go drive through theirs.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  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 users. And non-grids in the US funnel onto very big roads with few crosswalks, so that's even more diversion distance; and then on top of that it can easily take a few minutes to even get a walk/cycle signal at an intersection. In contrast it's very easy to make a grid less hospitable to cars but also still allow pedestrians and cyclists to take the shortest path; just lay bollards diagonally across an four-way intersection that are too narrow for vehicles but large enough for bikes and people.
  - gpvos 4y ago
    Four-way stops are yet another American pessimization. You won't find them in any European country.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Not sure why. In low traffic situations in both directions, it seems it's probably safer to have everyone to have everyone stop rather than have traffic in one direction blast through.
      - jamiek88 4y ago
tharkun__ 4y ago
I don't see how it's incompatible with walking. I see the article mentions the same: If you are walking in a modern suburb, “You’re always going out of your way,” he says. It is not only people walking who have to take less direct routes. Buses are more effective when roads are in grids, allowing passengers to get anywhere with just one change. All that's required and normal in lots of Europe is for foot paths that cut through all of this. This means some properties won't be next to each other and instead have a public foot path in between. This also allows public transit not to have to go into the cul-de-sacs and stay on a main artery while allowing for an entire neighborhood of cul-de-sac houses to have easy access.
- brewdad 4y ago
  In America this is unacceptable both because suburban dwellers don't want to have people walking near their homes (invasion of privacy) and because developers would prefer to sell and build on as much land as possible. There's no money to be made on "public" land and it lowers the value of the land immediately adjacent to it.
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    I'm fairly sure municipal, non-road space increases the value of land adjacent to it
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      I think brewdad is actually right about the fact that it lowers the value directly adjacent to it. But you're also correct in that it increases the value of land close to it overall. Nobody wants to have their yard directly on the path, where people walk all the time, including with their dogs and for every so many dogs that get walked there and where the owner picks up after them, there will be one that doesn't. Even in the best neighbourhood you'll have teenagers being loud in those places at night etc. Just like everyone wants to live in close walking range to the park/playground so that the kids can easily get there by themselves i.e. that public land does increase in attractiveness to families but nobody really wants to live right next to it. Public walking and biking paths increase attractiveness to families again, because the kids don't have to bike on the road, they're on a safe path. But again, nobody really wants to live right next to it. And he's also correct in that developers won't like that and every square foot of path adds up over an entire project. However it doesn't mean that it isn't overall a good thing for many reasons. It's a give and take like many things in life but it does mean that it's a solvable problem.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

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. Sometimes the lack of space that a grid typically causes actually brings better traffic engineering. But it's definitely correct that the modern non-grid is definitely not suitable to walking/biking, but that's more due to zoning and centralization of systems (e.g. schools) rather than grid vs. non-grid. It's not like a cul-de-sac for a car couldn't contain an off-shoot to a pedestrian/biking path that cuts a trip significantly for a non-car.

closeparen 4y ago
It sits in a kind of weird contradiction, because although one of its characteristics is that it's really only practical to navigate by car (and thus generates traffic!), one of its key design goals is to minimize the car traffic near people's houses. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQw05Mr63E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQw05Mr63E

davidw 4y ago

Grids are not perfect, but they are "pretty good" in a lot of different circumstances, and far more adaptable than other street patterns. Living on a cul-de-sac is nice in some ways, but it doesn't do well at all with change or adaptation. Grids were "pretty good" with horses and buggies, pretty good with cars, pretty good with eBikes, and will probably be pretty good with whatever the future holds, rather than being "perfect" for any one way of getting around.

anon291 4y ago

They're not even made for cars. With the non-grids in many suburbs, you have to drive for more than five minutes just to reach something that ought to be a two minute walk or a 30 second drive. Endless cul-de-sacs and branches make it unfriendly to everything.

hgomersall 4y ago
Modern best practice is to have permeable neighbourhoods, with lots of active transport routes between nodes. Cul-de-sacs should only be cul-de-sacs for cars, not people.

bernawil 4y ago

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 surface so other people don't drive near your house but you can go drive through theirs.

bobthepanda 4y ago
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 users. And non-grids in the US funnel onto very big roads with few crosswalks, so that's even more diversion distance; and then on top of that it can easily take a few minutes to even get a walk/cycle signal at an intersection. In contrast it's very easy to make a grid less hospitable to cars but also still allow pedestrians and cyclists to take the shortest path; just lay bollards diagonally across an four-way intersection that are too narrow for vehicles but large enough for bikes and people.
- gpvos 4y ago
  Four-way stops are yet another American pessimization. You won't find them in any European country.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Not sure why. In low traffic situations in both directions, it seems it's probably safer to have everyone to have everyone stop rather than have traffic in one direction blast through.
    - jamiek88 4y ago

tharkun__ 4y ago

I don't see how it's incompatible with walking. I see the article mentions the same: If you are walking in a modern suburb, “You’re always going out of your way,” he says. It is not only people walking who have to take less direct routes. Buses are more effective when roads are in grids, allowing passengers to get anywhere with just one change. All that's required and normal in lots of Europe is for foot paths that cut through all of this. This means some properties won't be next to each other and instead have a public foot path in between. This also allows public transit not to have to go into the cul-de-sacs and stay on a main artery while allowing for an entire neighborhood of cul-de-sac houses to have easy access.

brewdad 4y ago
In America this is unacceptable both because suburban dwellers don't want to have people walking near their homes (invasion of privacy) and because developers would prefer to sell and build on as much land as possible. There's no money to be made on "public" land and it lowers the value of the land immediately adjacent to it.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  I'm fairly sure municipal, non-road space increases the value of land adjacent to it
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    I think brewdad is actually right about the fact that it lowers the value directly adjacent to it. But you're also correct in that it increases the value of land close to it overall. Nobody wants to have their yard directly on the path, where people walk all the time, including with their dogs and for every so many dogs that get walked there and where the owner picks up after them, there will be one that doesn't. Even in the best neighbourhood you'll have teenagers being loud in those places at night etc. Just like everyone wants to live in close walking range to the park/playground so that the kids can easily get there by themselves i.e. that public land does increase in attractiveness to families but nobody really wants to live right next to it. Public walking and biking paths increase attractiveness to families again, because the kids don't have to bike on the road, they're on a safe path. But again, nobody really wants to live right next to it. And he's also correct in that developers won't like that and every square foot of path adds up over an entire project. However it doesn't mean that it isn't overall a good thing for many reasons. It's a give and take like many things in life but it does mean that it's a solvable problem.