Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somehow I fail to see any meaningful difference between the grids just listed. Unless you consider the difference between a square and a rectangle to be very meaningful.
Yes, grids are supposed to look like, well, grids. What's so different about Savannah's? Hint: Nothing except you're very taken with it.
What's so different about Savannah's? Hint: Nothing except you're very taken with it.
The public squares/parks laid out in the center within the grid. That's rather unique and certainly not nothing. And I think the answer to what's so different was mentioned earlier in the thread.
The public squares/parks laid out in the center within the grid. That's rather unique and certainly not nothing. And I think the answer to what's so different was mentioned earlier in the thread.
You don't get it, either. Let's look at the following conversation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
No, every street grid is not the same. Many blocks in Denver are broken up by parks large and small. There are some angled streets in Denver,too, including a major thoroughfare, Speer Blvd. The downtown streets are on a diagonal grid. https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&ved=0CKEBELYD
If you're so concerned about "nature", perhaps you shouldn't live in a house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
So what? Every major city has at least one park, gridded or not. Do you have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Yes, stated in my first sentence. Since you don't "get it", I'll elaborate-the grid is interrupted by the parks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Not really.
If the park was in the shape of an octagon or a snowflake or some other non-rectangular shape then what you said might be true. But from what I can see they are not. The parks on the Denver map are all in the shape of a square or a rectangle. They are composed of straight lines and right angles, making them conform and align perfectly with the grid pattern. They do not break up or interrupt the grid they conform to it.
Point 1: The bold is untrue, to say the least. People sometimes see what they want to see. I gave several examples of where one could drive (or bike, or walk) into a lake following Denver's grid.
Point 2: Savannah's grid, however "unique" it seems to you and cisco, is very regular in shape.
Point 3: If you look at Chicago, Omaha, Minneapolis and Salt Lake, you will see the grids are not uniform and have some irregularities. Again, people see what they want to see.
Point 1: The bold is untrue, to say the least. People sometimes see what they want to see. I gave several examples of where one could drive (or bike, or walk) into a lake following Denver's grid.
Point 2: Savannah's grid, however "unique" it seems to you and cisco, is very regular in shape.
Point 3: If you look at Chicago, Omaha, Minneapolis and Salt Lake, you will see the grids are not uniform and have some irregularities. Again, people see what they want to see.
I don't think you're "getting it", either. As for point 2, it has nothing to do with how regular it is. As you said, some of your example show grids with irregularities. What does make Savanah different is this layout:
Savannah is different from your typical grid. Though in practice I would admit it is still a fairly autocentric city. The problem is the blocks are too long to be very walkable. The population density is pretty low (only 1,300/sq mi.) and the housing stock mostly one or two story low rises. Another problem are the squares which are little more than single-use grass parks and don't attract much foot traffic. There is little mixed-use activity outside of a small downtown area. Those things and others would have to be fixed for the Oglethorpe plan to really work.
I don't think you're "getting it", either. As for point 2, it has nothing to do with how regular it is. As you said, some of your example show grids with irregularities. What does make Savanah different is this layout:
Other cities may parks within its grid, but I don't think any has those planned squares with that regularity. It does seem different.
So what? No grid is totally monolithic with no interruptions. Lakes, parks, hills, streams, highways, all interrupt the grid in EVERY gridded city. I'd call Savannah's more grid-like that any of the cities I posted maps of.
First we had to have that insane argument about straight lines being somehow "unnatural", now this about how all grids are alike, except this one.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-22-2013 at 07:50 PM..
So what? No grid is totally monolithic with no interruptions. Lakes, parks, hills, streams, highways, all interrupt the grid in EVERY gridded city. I'd call Savannah's more grid-like that any of the cities I posted maps of.
I agree it's more grid-like. But I think the planned regular squares are rather distinctive.
So what? No grid is totally monolithic with no interruptions. Lakes, parks, hills, streams, highways,
all interrupt the grid in EVERY gridded city.
Uh, no. The parks and highways in cities like Denver are not disruptions to the grid in the least, they conform to it. Didn't we go over this already? You sure do talk in circles a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I'd call Savannah's more grid-like that any of the cities I posted maps of.
That's your opinion, and again one not shared by the consensus in the planning profession.
Round and round you go, when you'll stop spinning nobody knows.
Uh, no. The parks and highways in cities like Denver are not disruptions to the grid in the least, they conform to it. Didn't we go over this already? You sure do talk in circles a lot.
That's your opinion, and again one not shared by the consensus in the planning profession.
Round and round you go, when you'll stop spinning nobody knows.
You're the one talking in circles. Supposedly the big deal with Savannah, according to you, is that you have to drive around the squares. Well, go drive into one of the lakes in Denver, or Minneapolis!
And you obviously, and I mean obviously, have NEVER driven in Denver, into a lake or otherwise. There are numerous disruptions to the grid; you'll be driving down a street and it suddenly comes to an end, sometimes for no good reason, only to start up again some blocks away. Now go drive into Sloan's Lake!
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-23-2013 at 08:36 AM..
You're the one talking in circles. Supposedly the big deal with Savannah, according to you, is that you have to drive around the squares. Well, go drive into one of the lakes in Denver, or Minneapolis!
And you obviously, and I mean obviously, have NEVER driven in Denver, into a lake or otherwise. There are numerous disruptions to the grid; you'll be driving down a street and it suddenly comes to an end, sometimes for no good reason, only to start up again some blocks away. Now go drive into Sloan's Lake!
You know, depending on the time of year, driving onto one of the lakes in Minneapolis isn't quite as hard/fatal as you seem to think. (I don't have anything useful to add here.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
