What OTL cities would you say had a good chance of looking different? This can be in the past, the present, or both.
Wren's plan, assuming it's the one below you were writing about, was grid-ish but had a number of piazze and associated diagonal roads.Grid systems are ugly as hell. Glad London didn't get one. I believe Christopher Wren had a plan for London to have a new road system of concentric circles.
They're incredibly easy to navigate and I don't see how they're ugly.Grid systems are ugly as hell. Glad London didn't get one. I believe Christopher Wren had a plan for London to have a new road system of concentric circles.
It also seems likely that if a Grid system was implemented in the City, then it would've been extended to all of London.Wren's plan, assuming it's the one below you were writing about, was grid-ish but had a number of piazze and associated diagonal roads.
They're incredibly easy to navigate and I don't see how they're ugly.
Who does that matter to besides people in helicopters?Because they are formulaic and characterless. They lose a sense of neighborhoods and place, and typically are very bad at generating community. Which of these is the more interesting place to live and explore?
https://imgur.com/a/dEnOICg
Who does that matter to besides people in helicopters?
My answer would be that New York is one of the most character-filled cities in the United States, with very strong neighborhoods and places, but, of course, has a very strong grid system. Meanwhile, most suburbs have no grid and are deliberately designed to have complicated internal road structures, but lack much of any sense of neighborhood or place, and rarely have much community sentiment. Other factors than the arrangement of roads seems to dictate the health or sickness of local communities, so why not choose a system that facilitates easy movement?Because they are formulaic and characterless. They lose a sense of neighborhoods and place, and typically are very bad at generating community. Which of these is the more interesting place to live and explore?
My answer would be that New York is one of the most character-filled cities in the United States, with very strong neighborhoods and places, but, of course, has a very strong grid system. Meanwhile, most suburbs have no grid and are deliberately designed to have complicated internal road structures, but lack much of any sense of neighborhood or place, and rarely have much community sentiment. Other factors than the arrangement of roads seems to dictate the health or sickness of local communities, so why not choose a system that facilitates easy movement?
For walking, most complex road networks are good enough compared to the inefficient cul-de-sac, but grid systems are the ideal.I'd also reject the idea that the grid system is the best for easy movement. Typically they are based around traffic light intersections, which are terrible for congestion. The best system for smooth traffic would probably be some sort of hexagonal lattice with roundabouts.
For walking, most complex road networks are good enough compared to the inefficient cul-de-sac, but grid systems are the ideal.
Source (a full grid is marginally more optimal than the system on the right)
For any public transit, grids are easily the best layout. Streetcars, elevated trains, and subways can't turn well (and even bus lines are best without many turns), and it's very easy on a grid to run a line straight down one street. The hexagonal grid or any other alternative (including the network shown above) cannot do this.
I am not well versed in this topic either, but could the skyscraper take off in Europe? I would hate to see it, but with this thought exercise I do not see why the major cities of Europe couldn't adopt the skyscraper and look a la New York or Chicago.