Is Boston's downtown laid out poorly? (Quincy, Washington: living, train, housing)

[g500]

Poorly is not the word, but confusing may be a better choice of words.

Never been to Boston, but looking at the immediate downtown area on a map it looks confusing and possibly difficult to navigate, especially for tourists. It also may contribute to traffic congestion in the immediate downtown perhaps? Given Boston's history it almost looks like it was laid out like a lot of very old European cities (Paris, London)...

Can someone explain... is the downtown area hilly, requiring winding streets (i.e. not as much of a grid pattern) or is it because it is so close to the coast? Obviously it is too late to change anything about street layout now, but I'm just trying to understand it. I'm not sure if I can name another city larger than Boston in the US that has sort of a lack of grid pattern (NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Philly, Houston, Dallas all have nice neat grids).

Btw, not trashing Boston at all. It is one of my top favorite cities, and a place I would like to visit someday.

[timberline742]

It is because it wasn't laid out. It developed. It was cow paths and trails that became roads over time.. This is (one of) the oldest cities in the country, roads weren't planned in the 1600s.

[BostonMike7]

Yeah, they didn't really plan it for 2000's living back when it was settled. In fact, much of Boston is cut down hills and backfill


Boston was really extensively backfilled in the 1800's. Bullfinch Triangle, for example, used to be a shallow lagoon (Mill Pond) with a small dam located roughly where Causeway St is. ( Hence the name Causeway St). In the early 1800's they chopped down Beacon Hill somewhat, and used the fill to fill in the pond.


If you notice, most of the early roads marked on the map still follow actual streets today. Washington St was really the only way out of Boston through the former Boston Neck, and still follows the route that was laid out back in the 1600's

[Cantabridgienne]

A grid pattern doesn't equate to lesser traffic, unless you find traffic in say, Midtown Manhattan to be a breeze.

[g500]

Thanks all. Interesting.

What I meant was that perhaps Boston's lack of grid potentially exacerbates its traffic congestion (people getting lost, maybe higher incidence of crashes, also straight lines are more efficient than curvy). That's not to say that having a grid pattern eliminates or lessens traffic problems.

[timberline742]

If it does, it does. It can't be changed so there isn't much reason to think about it.

[g500]

Exactly. What are they going to do about it now, demolish billions of dollars worth of skyscrapers and layout a new grid. If anything it adds to the character and history of Boston. Not many major US cities that are like this (the old European style).

[metalmancpa]

I think it's a terrible city to navigate through. Not just because of the one way streets, but also due to the curvature and the confusion it causes. I've been navigating the city my entire life and I still find it difficult (I'm 56 if that matters).

[g500]

Nice. Like I said there aren't many cities like it, maybe Providence RI and Albany NY on a much smaller scale. Pittsburgh on a pretty much slightly smaller scale is also sort of strangely laid out too, but that has more to do with it being located entirely on top of mountains.

I'm going to conclude that Boston is probably the largest, difficult-to-navigate, downtown of an urban area.

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by metalmancpa

I think it's a terrible city to navigate through. Not just because of the one way streets, but also due to the curvature and the confusion it causes. I've been navigating the city my entire life and I still find it difficult (I'm 56 if that matters).

When I first started working downtown, I sometimes had to park because the train schedules wouldn't work for me to ride in. I was constantly getting myself lost, because two roads which start out parallel to each other, or at least appeared to, ended up curving away from each other, so I ended up heading in a totally different direction.

The financial district is of course where Boston started. Not only was there no plan for the city at the time, but in fact much of the land simply did not exist. Quincy Market was actually built out into the water - Long Warf was called that because at one point it was really, really long!

But that is what makes Boston so much more interesting than other cities. No one in their right mind drives in the financial district unless something forces them to. And once you place a few landmarks, it starts to makes some kind of odd sense. Now, the one ways, oddball intersections, etc. are a different situation.