Jump to content

Best city layout - Grid, Hexagonal, Circular or Natural?


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Off topic, but here is a Google map of a bizarre network of roads laid out in grid patterns with absolutely nothing built along them. Hundreds of miles of roads spaced generally a block apart without a single resident or business. A TerraServer map from ten years ago shows the same.

Yeah it's weird to drive through that area with all these streets laid out and nothing on them. Albuquerque went through a big boom back in the 80's and 90's. Rio Rancho certainly decided to take advantage of that and went crazy laying out streets for future development. I guess you could say they went overboard but I guess they're set pretty well for the future. The Albuquerque metro is still growing at a good pace and some of those areas are being filled in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently re-read an article in a Kansas City Urban Development magazine called "Review" that suggested we move to a concentric circle design (which is bad b/c it would cause the destruction of our most historic buildings). It pointed out many highlights about it and what good it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also still support the circle because of the difficulty of expanding outwards.

And like I said, the grid can cause more square buildings to be built than uniquely shaped buildings.

Loops around cities generally create more development around the loop exits. After its developed and houses expand beyond the loop cities look to create a bigger loop further out thus creating more sprawl.

I agree w/ the second quote because it seems to be human nature to have the face of the building parallel with the street. I have actually seen a few house consecutively put at an angle to the street and it made that street that much more unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like Detroit's, its kind of a combination of grid and circular

detroit_map.jpg

You beat me to it....I would like to bring up another 'model' that not talked about much in transportation networks...The Computer Network.

They are generally a combination of Grid and Hub and Spoke. There is a central area (internet cloud i.e. MCI) that handles most of the traffic. It is very structured. The external areas (local POPs i.e. Verizon local) are more diverse depending on the preferences of the individual service providers and user networks. These external areas can be a new hub-spoke or a more gridlike network. The external areas could be considered suburban towns around cities. The main breakdown is the connection between the Core City (internet) and the outlying area (local provider).

It's a start...haven't formulated everything completely but you get the general idea. I tried to keep it simple for the technically-challenged. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I used to be a believer in the city as designed for the pedestrian, that is no longer valid. Market choices indicate that the automobile is king, especially for post WWII cities. It is now more important that there be a balance between automobile use and the pedestrian. Good models are already being incorporated in most 21st C. residential high rises that incorporate parking garages and are constructed near mass tranist. Regarding the ideal layout of a city I have to bring San Francisco into the debate. That city would not be as striking or dramatic if it wasn't for the grid layout. It's as if man chose to exercise his will over the seemingly insurmountable topography. Circular patterns are confusing after a while and organic designs tend to be very insular (not friendly to outsiders). Grids are just the most efficient and in our busy modern lives we can all use a little more efficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go for the natural layout, which I will point out subsumes the circular and grid layouts to a certain extent. On perfectly flat land (such as Moscow), the city naturally expands in concentric circles. The layout of Jerusalem would have to completely disregard the terrain to be circular. Likewise for a developer building out a large area, a grid may be the most logical layout. The most important thing is to make sure that the city develops organically and is not too much planned all at once. The grid plan of Manhattan was an unfortunate mistake, the organic neighborhoods of Greenwich Village and Lower Manhattan are much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philadelphia was the first colonial city in America with the grid system, William Penn laid it out in 1683.

The grid system facilitates transportation, thereby leading to lower costs than the circular and other systems in place in Europe. But the grid system has the drawbacks - population skyrockets in the late 1800s and early 1900s, strains city services and leaves people in slums. Also the grid systems facilitate the development of the automobile, leading to suburbia development craze after the Second World War.

I went to Richmond last week for the orientation, and sometimes their streets get me lost. One way you have a 2-way street, and then you stop at the stoplight. The road that is ahead is one way facing you, you have to either turn left or right. It stinks to be driving in Richmond those days especially with the confusing system. Some cities in the grid system have their roads laid out too small for the automobile, so we see a lot of one-way streets in cities with grid systems. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen a hexagonal street pattern before. The only place I've seen hexagons used in relation to planning is in central place theory. The ideal layout to me is Washington DC. You have a basic grid, but diagonal streets that allows traffic to move that way too. One of the grid's flaws is that you can only move in two directions.

The guy who came up with the grid was a Greek architect called Hippodamus. He designed cities like Miletus and Priene, among others, in the 5th century BC. Some call him the father of planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philadelphia was the first colonial city in America with the grid system, William Penn laid it out in 1683.

The grid system facilitates transportation, thereby leading to lower costs than the circular and other systems in place in Europe. But the grid system has the drawbacks - population skyrockets in the late 1800s and early 1900s, strains city services and leaves people in slums. Also the grid systems facilitate the development of the automobile, leading to suburbia development craze after the Second World War.

I went to Richmond last week for the orientation, and sometimes their streets get me lost. One way you have a 2-way street, and then you stop at the stoplight. The road that is ahead is one way facing you, you have to either turn left or right. It stinks to be driving in Richmond those days especially with the confusing system. Some cities in the grid system have their roads laid out too small for the automobile, so we see a lot of one-way streets in cities with grid systems. <_<

I don't see how the grid helped develop the automobile. And the suburbs they created are so disorderly that it's very easy to get lost and you run into tons of dead ends. Cul-de-sacs are neighmares!

By the way odumonarch, next time you're here.... remember, downtown from the river to 95... Byrd = eastbound, Canal = westbound (west of 12th St), Cary = eastbound, Main = westbound (west of 12th), Franklin and Bank = eastbound( exception Bank is two-way after Governor, Grace = westbound, Broad is two-way, Marshall = eastbound (west of 10th I think), Clay = westbound, Leigh is two-way, Jackson is two-way, DuVal is two-way, and from west to east, the north-south streets, Henry = northbound, Monroe = southbound, Madison = north Jefferson = south, Adams two-way, Foushee = two-way, 1st = south, 2nd = north, 3rd = south (was widened and made two-way north of Broad), 4th = north (between Leigh and Jackson it's two-way), 5th = south (two-way between Tredegar and Canal). 6th 2 way between Marshall and Grace, southbound after Grace, 7th = north, 8th = south, 9th = north, 10th south (north of Capitol Square, two-way south of it), 11th = north, 12th = two-way, Governor St between Broad and Bank is closed, one block between Bank and Main is two-way, 13th/DuVal St = two-way, 13 between Main and Cary = south, 14th = two-way, 15th = two way, 17th = south between Broad and Grace, two-way between Main and Franklin, northbound between Dock and Main, 18th = northbound after Grace (two-way from Dock to Grace), AND 19th is southbound south of Grace I think... so how confusing is that? it's easy. The streets alternate direction... Not all grids are one-way... most of Richmond north of the James is of various grids and 95% of them are two-way. There are some one-way streets in the old City of Manchester which has very narrow streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually done a little reading regarding this topic and, like all things, it's a little more complicated than "pick your favorite street layout and run with it".

"Natural" street layouts: basically everything before surveying and landscape manipulation. Irregular street patters, both confusing and difficult/impossible to navigate. unmanagable land plots and inefficient use of property overall. However, distributes traffic allowing for many routes to a given destination.

Circular: follows development patters and centralizes functions, however, this is counterproductive to modern multinodal cities and, especially near the center, land uses are inefficient. Also, Navigation can be challenging on circular streets as each part of the circle may look like every other part and people may end up confusing cardinal directions.

Grid: most efficient in terms of land use distributions and navigational understanding. Coupling with angled "spoke" roads criss-crossing the grid reduces complications in attempting to reach destination not directly in line with the cardinal directions. major drawbacks include monotony of design and problems with safety: long stretches of road are conducive to faster driving - a major detriment in neighboords (strict grids are therefore best used in business districts while modified grids with gentle curves (aiken to natural street layout) are better for neighboorhoods.

Hexagonal: attempting to capitalize on the effienct land use of the grid while seeking to encompass develpment patters like the circular layout. I haven't read as much on this (I have a packet i've downloaded i need to read) but there are examples out there in the world...

-New Delhi

Aerial of New Delhi

Map of New Delhi

-Canberra

map1.jpg

Of course, as I said, things are more complicated than that.

The following gives a good rundown of modern U.S. street designs and when those designs prevailed.

image004.jpg

As a future urban planner (*crosses fingers*). I've spent a good deal of time reading and thinking about the issue of basic street design and I suppose the following is an extremely basic summary of the conclusions I've come to concerning the "best" choice for street layouts.

Urban Core/Downtown/CBD (high and medium density):

ease of navigation and understanding are important here as well as efficient land use. Here I would use either a strict grid or a combination between that and the fragmented parallel.

Urban Neighborhoods (medium to low density):

breaks in the strict grid are important here to quite the hum of the city for optimal qulaity of life. At the same time, we want to maintain some semblance of a grid to foster high accessability within the urban framework. At this level we would use the fragmented parallel though ideally the warped parallel with a higher order strict grid at approximately a mile spacing to maintian navigational efficiency.

Urban Frindge (mostly low density):

while still in an "urban" setting, this is the transitional phase to suburban using a mixture of mostly the warped parallel and some of the loops and lollipops.

Suburban (low density)

the suburbs are a modern reality and they're here to stay. it's important to remember though, that suburbs themselves aren't all bad, it's unplanned, uncontrolled, rampant suburban sprawl that is the real problem. Because of the nature of suburbs, the most effienct way to capitalize on the collector - arterial - highway system is to use the loops & lollipops and lollipops on a stick designs.

Good examples of successfully controlled suburbs utilizing these designs exist in canadian cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto... as well as in large australian cities.

Richmond, British Columbia

image_map.gif

Millwoods, Alberta (outside of Edmonton)

click and scroll down for image

So there's my two cents

For further reading click here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hexagonal pattern looks good in principle, but I think it would be confusing. I also don't know how well Canberra was planned. I don't percieve it to be a major flop like Brasilia, but I don't think it is an overwhelming success either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have actually done a little reading regarding this topic and, like all things, it's a little more complicated than "pick your favorite street layout and run with it".

"Natural" street layouts: basically everything before surveying and landscape manipulation. Irregular street patters, both confusing and difficult/impossible to navigate. unmanagable land plots and inefficient use of property overall. However, distributes traffic allowing for many routes to a given destination.

Circular: follows development patters and centralizes functions, however, this is counterproductive to modern multinodal cities and, especially near the center, land uses are inefficient. Also, Navigation can be challenging on circular streets as each part of the circle may look like every other part and people may end up confusing cardinal directions.

Grid: most efficient in terms of land use distributions and navigational understanding. Coupling with angled "spoke" roads criss-crossing the grid reduces complications in attempting to reach destination not directly in line with the cardinal directions. major drawbacks include monotony of design and problems with safety: long stretches of road are conducive to faster driving - a major detriment in neighboords (strict grids are therefore best used in business districts while modified grids with gentle curves (aiken to natural street layout) are better for neighboorhoods.

Hexagonal: attempting to capitalize on the effienct land use of the grid while seeking to encompass develpment patters like the circular layout. I haven't read as much on this (I have a packet i've downloaded i need to read) but there are examples out there in the world...

-New Delhi

Aerial of New Delhi

Map of New Delhi

-Canberra

map1.jpg

Of course, as I said, things are more complicated than that.

The following gives a good rundown of modern U.S. street designs and when those designs prevailed.

image004.jpg

As a future urban planner (*crosses fingers*). I've spent a good deal of time reading and thinking about the issue of basic street design and I suppose the following is an extremely basic summary of the conclusions I've come to concerning the "best" choice for street layouts.

Urban Core/Downtown/CBD (high and medium density):

ease of navigation and understanding are important here as well as efficient land use. Here I would use either a strict grid or a combination between that and the fragmented parallel.

Urban Neighborhoods (medium to low density):

breaks in the strict grid are important here to quite the hum of the city for optimal qulaity of life. At the same time, we want to maintain some semblance of a grid to foster high accessability within the urban framework. At this level we would use the fragmented parallel though ideally the warped parallel with a higher order strict grid at approximately a mile spacing to maintian navigational efficiency.

Urban Frindge (mostly low density):

while still in an "urban" setting, this is the transitional phase to suburban using a mixture of mostly the warped parallel and some of the loops and lollipops.

Suburban (low density)

the suburbs are a modern reality and they're here to stay. it's important to remember though, that suburbs themselves aren't all bad, it's unplanned, uncontrolled, rampant suburban sprawl that is the real problem. Because of the nature of suburbs, the most effienct way to capitalize on the collector - arterial - highway system is to use the loops & lollipops and lollipops on a stick designs.

Good examples of successfully controlled suburbs utilizing these designs exist in canadian cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto... as well as in large australian cities.

Richmond, British Columbia

image_map.gif

Millwoods, Alberta (outside of Edmonton)

click and scroll down for image

So there's my two cents

For further reading click here

I don't know how I missed those diagrams... maybe I hadn't logged in... but I love the example of how street patterns changed throughout last century. One thing I hate about suburbs are its windy streets. They don't know how to draw straight lines anymore? Want to slow down traffic, speed bumps or those gooves in the road that make that funky sound as you go over them... heck I've even said bring back cobblestones to help slow people down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Grid, grid, grid....just make it match (as much as possible) the existing topography of the site. Serpentine streets, made curvy - just because, are like bad architecture - designed ONLY to please the senses. Nothing beats the effectiveness of the grid for traffic flow (both pedestrian and vehicular).

The "Lollipop" designs of the 60's - 90's are simply marketing for home builders and end up frustrating neighbors who actually like walking in their town. Long Cul de Sacs (along with other "this is my Castle - don't mess with it" designs) discourage walking - and have created much of the NIMBYISM that we "enjoy" today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most cities - it's a mixture. In the older section, developed prior to WWII, the streets are developed with fairly small blocks and on a grid this allowed people to walk, work, and shop with minimal movement. As one moves from the center of the city the blocks become very large and there are more dead-end streets (cul-de-sacs). This movement of masses and the change of development standards occurred post WWII because: 1) land was cheap, 2) Concrete and manufacturing of streets became inexpensive, 3) VHA offered cheap loans to Vets wanting to move to the suburbs.

Open roadways and fast moving traffic - ahh...the good ol' days :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Buffalo has a beautiful and magnificent street layout. There is something monumental about the way the streets lead to Niagara Square and the great City Hall. There are public rallys in this square to celebrate victories of sports teams, ect and there is a really nice "public" feel.

Atlanta must be the best example of total lack of planning for streets. It looks like they sprang up around the rail lines. All I can say is, what a mess! It really helps to slice superhighways through it and then name every street "Peachtree". Does anyone else think Atlanta is a disaster when it comes to streets?

London is another natural street city but here it really works. It feels as if the urban spread will go on forever which is kind of neat. Atlanta is just a sprawling mess! Would Atlanta have turned out better if it had had a plan like Buffalo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like looking at natural layouts, but they're hell to get around and just not practical. Grid seems to be best, but has no personality.

The circle setup seems to be the way Texas likes to build, most medium and large size cities have a "loop" highway surrounding them - the way Loop 323 surrounds my own city. Pull up a map of Tyler, TX (where I live), Houston, Dallas, etc and you'll see a layout that looks much like Moscow. It is a quick, efficient way to get around. I think if you could combine the loop system with grids, you'd have a happy medium.

The hexagonal system seems neat too...but a little confusing to get around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I like grids well enough, but one place I think it's way overdone is Miami. The combination of the flat landscape with the grid relentlessly extended out so many miles from downtown is just... ugh. Not sure what the right word is. Is it just me?

IMHO, the key here is to use a variety of methods to design places. There are circumstances that one will work better than another. For instance, to accentuate an important public building a circle may be utilized so as to focus attention to it and to surround it by equal distance with it's users. The grid would then extend from that area. As one moves further from the center of density or into areas of large topographic relief, the street should follow the terrain and focus on the natural environment more so than the man-made.

There is no such thing as "the best" road layout for all circumstances. That said, the grid will usually work best for maximizing density and increasing pedestrian access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.