The best layout for cities is a grid with breaks where necessary for terrain and public spaces - and there's over 3,000 years of evidence to show that they work.
>>901947 >>901949 Suburbs with few interior connecting streets surrounded by arterial roads are a tragedy, the only way to make that layout worse is to add lots of dead end cul-de-sacs. Those layouts pretty much ruin all hope of any transportation ever working there aside from private cars, lock huge parcels of land into being low density residential development in perpetuity, and in most places they turn into net-revenue-drains for cities after 2-3 decades because the small number of people who live in such places don't generate enough economic activity to pay for maintaining the vast acreage of asphalt and water infra.
>>901953 I agree, this type developmnet is shit. On the other hand, average US middle class suburb with cul-de-sacs can ve still more dense, than average European village. With bonus being placed in agglomeration with thousands of people, instead of being last village with few hundreds people, in the valley four kilometers from another village.
Just made some footways and pedestrian bridges/tunnels to arterial road with bus stop and you can manage more, than some European places do with subsidies for transportation.
For CBD grids are the way to go. If you do flip flopping one ways it gets even better because it makes the streets feel less cramped. For comfy car based suburbs any random design is fine where you have local streets branching off a few main roads. For suburbs with public transit it gets more difficult, your best bet might be to have a train station with park and ride capabilities. This can keep the basic suburb design that people move to suburbs for while giving the local town access to transit.
>>901989 Come on, you hand picked probably the best example of poor planning. Las Vegas suffered one of the worst housing bubbles in the country after they overbuilt thousands of acres of these kinds of developments. Suburbs can be pleasant if you move to ones that are not the cookie cutter new developments where they put the same shingles and roof on every house.
>>902014 You can build grids with traffic calming intentions. Best way to do it is to not have every street lineup with a major street, stagger it ever 2-4 blocks to keep people from using side streets as main arteries. You can also put up blockades at the end of the block so only cars can go in one direction. >>902107 imagine if this wasn't a grid tho. bottlenecks all over the fuckin place. Brooklyn is a better example of how they fucked up by not building a proper grid. What a clusterfuck that city is with their sideways streets and backwards ass development.
>>902107 Manhattan just has too much volume and not enough capacity. It would be worse without a grid design. Other issues are overcapacity roads, non-synced and non-actuated signals, and aging infrastructure. A crap ton of Manhattan's signals still use EM controllers meaning they aren't smart enough to handle this amount of traffic.
>>902224 did they do this on purpose so people wouldn't drive in london? >>902223 I've seen a few here in canada but they're never in a major city and if they are they will feature a huge interchange. This seems like chaos.
>>902227 >live in london >get charged to drive to work >get charged to renew my TV license when I get home >police bust down my door and sweep my house for weapons, finding and confiscating a bicycle wheel, a cricket bat, and all of my kitchen knives
>>902744 As far as the early 1900 and before city centers go, then you invented cul-de-sac suburbs.
Because it's much worse than the whatever it tries to emulate. See, there are hardly any dead ends at the left column of your picture. The cities may lack consistency but it doesn't mean they lack structure.
That said, New York is in the league of it's own. Pity automobile was invented and the originally ridiculously spacious streets ended up insufficient.
>>905124 >reasonably permeable Not even close - every single trip in that development, unless you were visiting a neighbor in the same ring and quadrant, requires traveling out to one of those two arterial roads. And none of those ring streets offer timely alternatives to the arterials. It's telling that, even in a relatively dense, space-efficient residential suburb, the schools in the center need giant parking lots - parents don't like their kids walking to school on busy roadways.
>>902044 I live in Slovakia, majored in city planning. That is indeed the average village layout here - thin and elongated strips of parcels next to each other with houses next to the common road and barns in the back. This way it was easier to let livestock out to the pastures in the morning and back in the evening. Bigger villages branch out perpendicular to the main road if not restricted by terrain and so the overall road surface is really small which is good for maintenance and money tied to it and you are sure to never walk far to the bus stop. However it also has a disadvantage of having essentially all of the traffic pass through there. No big deal in early 20th century, but in some places of the country motorway infrastructure is underdeveloped and lorries put a lot of stress on the road. There have even been some documented cases of structural integrity issues on houses next to the road in mountain passes where all heavy traffic converges into what is basically a country road.
On topic I would like to say that organic growth is the best.
>>902064 >Come on, you hand picked probably the best example of poor planning. The problem with urban planning is that a lot of people think it's a politically-correct way to force *others* to live in circumstances that the others don't like.
Some people talk of sprawl as if it's some evil plan, or a horrible mistake--and it isn't either. It's called "people making their own choices". Normally, when you have sprawl, the reason that it happened was because 1) developers built it, because 2) their research showed that it was what most prospective home-buyers wanted.
In the US in ~2000 there was a housing boom, so a lot of odd stuff got built (and defaulted on). That doesn't disprove the viability of the entire phenomenon of urban expansion however.
>>901989 >All we build are prisons of sadness. If paying customers choose sprawl, why would you call it a prison? They set their own priorities and made their own choice. Isn't prison where *somebody else* decides where you get to live?
>>905153 What you say is true: the market/consumers did demand sprawl, particularly in the postwar era. However, the development of towns and cities has never been strictly market driven:
1. On the supply side, the demand and availability of suburban tract housing has long been promoted and shaped by government policies, not just consumer preference (it's worth noting that for over 30 years the FHA used redlining policies to protect racial segregation). And several decades into the surburban experiment, the fact that so much land has been devoted to single family housing isolated from workplaces now imposes real limitations on consumer choice.
2. It's ideal for people to choose how and where they want to live, but when neighborhoods and cities are laid out there's a strong public interest in how land use effects the entire community of a place, not just individual homeowners for two basic reasons: -After private developers finance initial construction, the roads, pipes, sewers, etc. become the responsibility of the city, and must be maintained with taxpayer money. -Like a factory dumping toxic waste into a river, a badly planned neighborhood can harm a broader community. Sprawling suburbia in particular has multiple pernicious effects including the near requirement that residents add the price of cars and long commutes to their cost of living, detrimental impacts to public health, restrictions on the freedom of movement to anyone not inside a motor vehicle, and increased pollution from inefficient homes and transportation.
Not to mention the fact that antiquated zoning laws basically restrict denser housing or mixed use communities, pretty much forcing governments to pick up the bill with roads and transportation. The second and third generations of suburban construction were far from market driven
Planning around the automobile and allocating public funds to the construction of roads and supporting low density subdivisions is one of the greatest tragedies of misallocated resources in North American history
>>905223 >implying Toronto is better off now then it was before amalgamation
This city literally can't work togeather. City Council is a disaster, the TDSB is a disaster. We literally tried to take 6 different cities that have their own way of doing things, and tried to force them together and look how that turned out. At least back during pre amalgamation we could focus on our own local problems without some dumb fuck from the other end of the city sticking their nose into business it doesn't belong.
While where at it hows about we merge all of Peel into a single city, all of York into a single city and Durham as well, because it clearly worked out well for Toronto.
>>905112 Isn't it somewhat ironic that Jacobs sort of lured the middle-class back into the inner-city despite the fact she was advocating for the preservation of dense urban areas for the working class?
>>902006 >Grids are objectively the most efficient. Not necessarily true. Grids usually add to the amount of distance you have to travel to get somewhere, by comparison with a model with a hub, and radial and circumferential routes. They also tend to not form local nodes that can be developed into subordinate centers; the burbs are naturally dead because they keep everything at about the same density.
>>902885 Hong Kong is actually a great place. Being one of the thousands clustered together in identical apartment buildings seems dehumanizing and forces you to confront your irrelevance, but when you realize that you're irrelevant no matter where you live it becomes a bit more palatable.
>>905685 Hong Kong is also extremely homogenous with similar cultural and social values.
Brazilian favelas also have thousands of people clustered together and living conditions there also force you to confront your irrelevance. The difference there is that in those places you get to confront your irrelevance via a brutal, violent death. Is this somehow an ideal or desirable situation for you?
So aside from that wrong opinion that you attempted to shut down the discussion with, can you answer the question? Is a favela a desirable housing arrangement to you? It certainly would appear to meet the criteria of a "livable" environment as posted in this thread.
>>907860 It's super efficient if you're not trying to drive everywhere. The nice thing about medieval towns is that they were built on a human scale, with density high enough that the city could function without cars.
Rome in the 2nd century had a population of over a million, but you could still walk it end to end in under an hour. Good luck doing that in minneapolis
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.