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.
I get the point about the suburban grid being too big for walkability, but that implies that grids are not as important as we might be led to believe by people lamenting the lack of a grid in the suburbs.
Or perhaps you are conflating many different views as one? I doubt the OP (or myself) would complain about the lack of a grid in the suburbs. And as I said, interconnected streets do not imply a grid.
Or perhaps you are conflating many different views as one? I doubt the OP (or myself) would complain about the lack of a grid in the suburbs. And as I said, interconnected streets do not imply a grid.
You and the OP probably wouldn't complain about the lack of a grid in the burbs, but many others have over the course of the time I've been posting here.
If CD's search engine weren't so awful-awful, I'd do a search and find some posts that support my point.
You and the OP probably wouldn't complain about the lack of a grid in the burbs, but many others have over the course of the time I've been posting here.
If CD's search engine weren't so awful-awful, I'd do a search and find some posts that support my point.
Yes, I believe "many others" have. But so what? That doesn't mean every poster, even one whose views appear to fall under the "urbanist" camps, may/should follow what "many others" think. These others also aren't on this thread adding their views.
Yes, I believe "many others" have. But so what? That doesn't mean every poster, even one whose views appear to fall under the "urbanist" camps, may/should follow what "many others" think. These others also aren't on this thread adding their views.
Well, forgive me! I have gotten the general idea that most posters on here feel that the burbs don't have grid systems, but rather consist mainly of cul-de-sacs off main roads, and that this is a bad thing. I have never before seen anyone who feels that grids make walking more difficult.
Well, forgive me! I have gotten the general idea that most posters on here feel that the burbs don't have grid systems, but rather consist mainly of cul-de-sacs off main roads, and that this is a bad thing. I have never before seen anyone who feels that grids make walking more difficult.
As to the bolded, me neither. I did I say that most posters probably do feel that way, my point was some might not. I guess, have lived in areas where much is ungridded, I took it as complaints of not interconnected streets rather than burbs don't have grids.
That's what some seem to believe, but I think that's wrong. When people are walking they like to have an easily attainable goal in sight. Terminating vistas serve as visible, attainable goalposts towards your destination. People like having that sense of enclosure. They don't like looking at a huge long straight street that seems to go on forever without end. It's an uncomfortable feeling that makes you feel overwhelmed, somewhat similar to the sensation you get when looking down the edge of a steep cliff. It makes you nauseous.
I agree with this. Though I'm sure someone will say they prefer to have a desert in front of them.
I get the point about the suburban grid being too big for walkability, but that implies that grids are not as important as we might be led to believe by people lamenting the lack of a grid in the suburbs.
What do you mean? The 1 mile grid is really useless for aiding walkability, that's the whole point of putting the curvy disconnected streets even though there is a big grid overlaid on the entire landscape-- if it didn't reduce walking and driving through neighborhoods, the planners of those communities wouldn't have done it in the first place.
What do you mean? The 1 mile grid is really useless for aiding walkability, that's the whole point of putting the curvy disconnected streets even though there is a big grid overlaid on the entire landscape-- if it didn't reduce walking and driving through neighborhoods, the planners of those communities wouldn't have done it in the first place.
There are plenty of Soviet designed cities with the grid and are walkable.
The only reason something is not walkable is because it was not designed to be, whether grid or not.
There are many parts of London, UK that do not have a grid I would consider unwalkable.
Or perhaps you are conflating many different views as one?
Nope. I've seen plenty of urbanists that do emphasize the importance of the grid, and from what I've seen one of the major complaints about suburbia is that they have a hierarchy of streets, that they aren't gridded, et cetera, but when these same people are shown gridded suburbs, they imply that grids are irrelevant . To be sure, there are urbanists that don't care about the grid, but there are many that do, including people on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I agree with this. Though I'm sure someone will say they prefer to have a desert in front of them.
Like me ? For the record I prefer mountains - deserts are a bit boring .
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
What do you mean? The 1 mile grid is really useless for aiding walkability
Then obviously the grid isn't as important for walkability as we've been led to believe. That's the whole point.
Nope. I've seen plenty of urbanists that do emphasize the importance of the grid, and from what I've seen one of the major complaints about suburbia is that they have a hierarchy of streets, that they aren't gridded, et cetera, but when these same people are shown gridded suburbs, they imply that grids are irrelevant . To be sure, there are urbanists that don't care about the grid, but there are many that do, including people on this forum.
Ok, but it's hard to debate about your example unless some person with the same views as you describe appears on the thread.
Quote:
Then obviously the grid isn't as important for walkability as we've been led to believe. That's the whole point.
That's the point of the thread. Though, it's a bit of absurd complaint to complain the suburbs aren't gridded when here in New England grids are rare in cities as well. And in IMO Boston (and when I say Boston I mean the core of the metro not the city proper exactly) are one of the most pedestrian friendly places in the country. London does not have a grid, I can't remember ever thinking "if only it were gridded it'd be easier to walk around". But no one is suggesting that, but some posters just assume pedestrian friendly = grid.
Although, referring to suburban grids some were referring to, a one mile grid of arterials with non-gridded smaller streets is a different beast than a completely gridded road network. But those suburban grids aren't the ungridded "old city style" the OP had in mind — interconnected streets without a grid. The conversation drifted to something rather unrelated for some reason.
Btw, the town I live in is several country roads (or what were country roads) meeting near a point at the center of town, with smaller streets infillling in between. I don't think there was any plan or organization.
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.
. To be sure, there are urbanists that don't care about the grid, but there are many that do, including people on this forum.
? For the record I prefer mountains - deserts are a bit boring 
.
But no one is suggesting that, but some posters just assume pedestrian friendly = grid.