Why grids are better for walking, in 1 simple graphic

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by 10023

I dislike children. And most people shouldn't propagate.

Yes, let's design whole cities for fucking 10023.

Maybe you just don't really know any children, but yours is an unpopular and kind of offensive opinion. I believe the children are our future...teach them well and let them lead the way.

[10023]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Yes, let's design whole cities for fucking 10023.

Maybe you just don't really know any children, but yours is an unpopular and kind of offensive opinion. I believe the children are our future...teach them well and let them lead the way.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[muppet]

But if you show them all the beauty they possess inside it'll give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be. Oh.

[johnnypd]

Not such a bad idea to design public spaces with kids in mind. Cars and kids don't mix well and anything that makes public spaces more welcoming to people, and less welcoming to cars, is a good thing. In return for turning our streets over to cars we have made them too dangerous for kids to use and enjoy.

[10023]

Originally Posted by johnnypd

Not such a bad idea to design public spaces with kids in mind. Cars and kids don't mix well and anything that makes public spaces more welcoming to people, and less welcoming to cars, is a good thing. In return for turning our streets over to cars we have made them too dangerous for kids to use and enjoy.

Because city streets were a safe place for kids before ubiquitous automobiles?

How about: teach your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

[middeljohn]

Oakville, which is a suburn of Toronto, actually has pedestrian trails going through the suburbs in straight lines. You still have to walk far to get anywhere, but it's slightly better than being forced to stick to the cul-de-sacs.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by 10023

Because city streets were a safe place for kids before ubiquitous automobiles?

How about: teach your kids to look both ways before crossing the street.

Yes, and teach drivers that an unmarked intersection is automatically crosswalks on all sides. I can only slap so many fenders.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by 10023

I dislike children. And most people shouldn't propagate.

I like children but people who say cities aren't for kids (whether they be suburbanites who are scared of the city or young urban yuppies who want to age/family segregate cities) definitely shouldn't be propagating. The problem is cities need to return to being thought of as places for people of any age or family situation to live in, this is the way American cities were thought of until about 1950 when many cities peaked in population. Instead mass culture tells us to segregate ourselves, cities for the young, single and childless and suburbs for the middle aged with children and the sunbelt for the old. Of course reality is far more nuanced than that, the reality is few big cities have low % of children compared to the entire USA, this is especially true of NYC, LA, and Chicago, maybe San Francisco has a relatively low % of children.

Anyways the urban grid is arguably the most family friendly environment possible, or scratch that, it is the most human friendly environment possible.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by 10023

Because city streets were a safe place for kids before ubiquitous automobiles?

Actually relatively speaking yes the streets were a safe place for kids before automobiles. Sure the major streets where there was lots of commerce and longer distance travel were always congested but normal residential streets in big American cities were relatively free of traffic and parked cars up until the 1950's. Just look at old pictures/films or talk to some old timers, in Chicago it was the alleys in addition to the streets.

[Doady]

Organic streets layouts like the maps Muppet posted of London (UK) are best for pedestrians. Those routes were literally created by pedestrians after all.

Grids are not really that efficient. Notice in the OP that the one mile walkable distance creates a perfect diamond/square rather than a perfect circle. A circle would be ideal.

The suburban post-war road layout will not be permeable as a grid but don't assume that applies equally to both cars and pedestrians. I know in the GTA at least that would be an incorrect assumption.

For example:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.60551...gQ19-0gu-Q!2e0

I think in GTA's case, the relative lack of shops and services within walking distance compared to Old Toronto is because of the lower density rather than the street layout.

In the case of Phinney Ridge vs. Bellevue, I'm guessing density is main factor for the lack of shops and services within walking distance too.

[jtown,man]

This is actually my major critique about American cities, besides crime:

Cities are made for adults. Young adults at that.

Everyone says " oh wow, we love our area of the city, cafes, bars and restaurants are close-by."

Basically shit they like to do at night. Families don't care about that and that is usually what our cities are geared towards. Of course families still consist of adults, who like fun, but they also probably put their kids first.

[mhays]

Families can do great in dense cities. Corner stores, vertically-stacked schools, the ability to get around by transit or on foot when old enough, lots to do... Just being able to walk to school would be a big advantage, not to mention helping prep them to not be helpless when they hit 18.

[Doady]

So businesses in American cities are mainly or exclusively comprised of cafes, bars and restaurants?

[10023]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

This is actually my major critique about American cities, besides crime:

Cities are made for adults. Young adults at that.

Everyone says " oh wow, we love our area of the city, cafes, bars and restaurants are close-by."

Basically shit they like to do at night. Families don't care about that and that is usually what our cities are geared towards. Of course families still consist of adults, who like fun, but they also probably put their kids first.

That's always what cities have been geared towards. Well, that and commerce. The only difference is that back in the day, kids would have been working as busboys at the cafés, etc. Personally I'm with Boris Johnson... we like cities because there are "more girls at the bar", and "you can't get famous in the fucking village".

Cities can be places for people of any age but NOT designed for children at the expense of adults or overall efficiency.

Back to the point... older cities were designed organically and not planned. The main roads are usually old post roads which ran from town to town and generally go between important places or intersections. That actually makes it easier to find your way around if you're not sure where you're going. In modern planned cities, whenever the roads are laid out before the buildings are in place, grids are the only approach that makes any fucking sense. The cul-de-sac design of sprawl suburbs is illogical, inflexible and inefficient. It is urban planning for the same type of ignorant people that would build a stucco house in Florida modeled loosely on a French chateau... offensively fake.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 10023

I dislike children. And most people shouldn't propagate.

love this pic

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by 10023

That's always what cities have been geared towards. Well, that and commerce. The only difference is that back in the day, kids would have been working as busboys at the cafés, etc. Personally I'm with Boris Johnson... we like cities because there are "more girls at the bar", and "you can't get famous in the fucking village".

Cities can be places for people of any age but NOT designed for children at the expense of adults or overall efficiency.

Well every successful large city needs to be a magnet for young ambitious people to move to and that has been the case for pretty much all of human history but that is not all cities are about. To me the best cities are places where you have a bonanza of every type of humanity under the sun as diverse as possible in terms of race, ethnicity, income, age and occupations/lifestyles with obvious exceptions like ranchers or something. In America there is a historic tradition of big cities being good places to raise families.

When you read or hear about historic recollection of Chicago in say 1950 you hear about how important neighborhoods and families were, sure it was a bit insular and quite racially segregated but the reason the city had 3.6million people then was because working and middle class families were a core part of the proposition of life in the city and to a lesser extent I still think they are.

I mean Jane Jacobs sort of touched upon some of this, a sort of "urban family values" where there was no contradiction perceived or otherwise between attracting young newcomers and retaining families. I agree with you that cities should not be built for children at the expense of adults but the tragedy is that people in the suburban era have convinced themselves that such a tension is necessary in the first place.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

This is actually my major critique about American cities, besides crime:

Cities are made for adults. Young adults at that.

Everyone says " oh wow, we love our area of the city, cafes, bars and restaurants are close-by."

Basically shit they like to do at night. Families don't care about that and that is usually what our cities are geared towards. Of course families still consist of adults, who like fun, but they also probably put their kids first.

Case in point of what I have just been talking about, people are conditioned to believe this, that urbanity is only about nightlife for young people. Urban walkability is good for people of any age from children to the elderly. Sure the walkable amenities are going to be different depending on one's age and family status but they are still there. For instance kids can walk to a park, to school to their favorite lemonade or ice cream stand, walk to their friends houses. etc. Young single adults as you pointed out can walk to various nightlife amenities. Mature adults can go for walks with their children to the places I mentioned above, walk to a family dinner or night out with their spouse. The elderly can get up early and walk to their favorite neighborhood family restaurant or bakery at the crack of dawn, walk to the pharmacy and just get exercise that keeps their joints in healthy shape that can lead to better quality of life and longer life expectancy, I know plenty of old people who live in the city who do just that. It makes no difference if you are a young single person who parties all night or are a 90 year old who is in bed at dusk, the streets are open 24/7 and they benefit anybody of any age who desires an urban lifestyle for whatever reasons. As far as "more girls at the bar" well I would argue that 21 year old attractive bombshells and 90 year old ethnic grandmothers are equally important to the vitality of city life, to say the city must be either/or instead of both/and is contrary to how urban life is supposed to be.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

This is actually my major critique about American cities, besides crime:

Cities are made for adults. Young adults at that.

Everyone says " oh wow, we love our area of the city, cafes, bars and restaurants are close-by."

Basically shit they like to do at night. Families don't care about that and that is usually what our cities are geared towards. Of course families still consist of adults, who like fun, but they also probably put their kids first.

Father of a small child here. We like shit to do at night too. Just because you have a kid doesn't mean you stop going to cafes, bars and restaurants. Babysitters exist for a reason.

[lzppjb]

Edit: nevermind...some may find joke in poor taste.

[Fresh]

Too much grid can be a bad thing. I was thinking about this the other day: Melbourne is far more griddy than Sydney and when i was down there walking around I noted that I was missing the impetus to explore that i get from a road curving around a bend in middle distance. Long straight roads with no visible end point seem to often rob the surroundings of intimacy.

Example: Two major nightlife/retail/cafe/hipster strips that are essentially the demographic mirror image of each other for each city.

King St, Newtown (Sydney)



Sydney Road, Brunswick (Melbourne)



Maybe it's a matter of personal taste but i find curves and twists to make for a much more rewarding urban experience.