Why grids are better for walking, in 1 simple graphic

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by BeyondDC.com

Why grids are better for walking, in 1 simple graphic
http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=6610

This graphic shows how much ground a pedestrian can cover walking along street sidewalks in a gridded Seattle neighborhood, versus a nearby suburb. Although both maps show a one-mile radius, there are far more destinations within that radius in the gridded neighborhood.

Both maps show neighborhoods that are primarily single-family detached houses: Greenwood, Seattle and Eastgate, Bellevue. But the similarities end there.

In Bellevue trips are indirect and circuitous. Not only are far more residential streets accessible in Seattle, but also more commercial streets (in purple on the map). Both neighborhoods have plenty of parks (shown in green).

Granted, the two maps appear to be at slightly different visual scales, population density is probably higher in Seattle, and pedestrians in Bellevue can probably cut through yards to get places a little faster. But the overall point remains true that far more destinations are within easy walking in Seattle, which – surprise – is why more people walk there.

For the record, the key isn’t a strict rectilinear grid; it’s interconnectivity. Boston’s medieval web of streets is just as good, and maybe even better. The real key variable is the density of intersections, not the straightness of streets.

[10023]

This isn't so much an argument for grids as it is an argument against ridiculous, artificial cul-de-sacs. I wonder how a "traditional", organic street layout would look in comparison.

[seaskyfan]

Bellevue, dammit. Not Belleview.

I mean, it's right on the graphic.

[M II A II R II K]

What about compact European squiggly roads though...

[chris08876]

Both are equal. With the squiggly roads you just got to cut through peoples property or the forest.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

What about compact European squiggly roads though...

Was the original post tl;dr for you?

Originally Posted by original post

For the record, the key isn’t a strict rectilinear grid; it’s interconnectivity. Boston’s medieval web of streets is just as good, and maybe even better. The real key variable is the density of intersections, not the straightness of streets.

[mhays]

I fully agree with the point.

But there's an added complexity. The Bellevue area, like a lot of places from Pittsburgh to LA, is full of topography that gets in the way of connectivity -- ravines, streams, steep hillsides, etc. Sometimes the windy road simply has to go laterally along a hillside, or the missing connection would need a bridge.

This is also a culprit when density is discussed. It's important to keep ravines, streams, and wetlands for habitat reasons. Hillsides can be prohibitively expensive to build on. So often a sizeable percentage of land will (and often should) stay undeveloped. Though in town I'd usually say develop most of it anyway, because, for one, it's more important to augement the core city and reduce sprawl.

[Larry King]

Yes

for this reason I think philly is America's most walkable city

[10023]

What's better about European street systems, I've learned, is that all the main roads go somewhere.

In Manhattan it's very easy to find your way from, say, 13th and 2nd to 46th and 7th. But what's at either of those intersections? If you don't know where you're going, the navigability of the grid isn't much help.

In London you need to know the area to find a particular address, but all the main roads lead to major intersections or sites... because that's why they exist.

[dc_denizen]

cul de sac's aren't the problem per se, the problem is lot sizes. You could build very snug walkable areas with cul de sacs. Plus they are great for families with kids...

[Jasonhouse]

The real problem is that when the roads for cars end, the access for peds and cyclists almost always does too.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

cul de sac's aren't the problem per se, the problem is lot sizes. You could build very snug walkable areas with cul de sacs. Plus they are great for families with kids...

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

[muppet]

London mess - don't go without the satnav

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by muppet

London mess - don't go without the satnav

Most people in the US IMO really are not pedestrians, nor, have most Americans ever been a pedestrian. We are people that tend to take the car to go somewhere to walk in a park or in national forests. Most urban pedestrians feel like they have no choice but to walk.

Walking not only involves going from point A to point B, but also looking at all types of eye candy and having the absolute freedom to stop, shop, sit on a bench, try a new short cut, smell the air, and, watch out for cars, trucks, and buses.

Walking a grid, except in NYC, Toronto, and to a lesser extent old downtown LA and downtown Chicago*, is incredibly boring and becomes a seemingly endless series of cross walks and straight line sidewalks.

Buildings form walls on each side of the street which extend mercilessly to the end of line of site. You tend not to look in front of you except to avoid other pedestrians or to cross streets. Instead, you tend to look side to side. Visual candy if even present, is concentrated at intersections with cars, buses, and, stoplights.

Oh yes, you have to watch for bikes.



*Great architectural, and, street level eye candy trumps street layout.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by 10023

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

Well why not? Propagating the race is important after all...

...and walkability/urbanity goes hand in hand with kid-friendliness. Sprawly auto-suburbs are the most kid-hostile places on the other hand.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Most people in the US IMO really are not pedestrians, nor, have most Americans ever been a pedestrian.

Walking not only involves going from point A to point B, but also looking at all types of eye candy and having the absolute freedom to stop, shop, sit on a bench, try a new short cut, smell the air, and, watch out for cars, trucks, and buses.

Walking a grid, except in NYC, Toronto, and to a lesser extent old downtown LA and downtown Chicago*, is incredibly boring and becomes a seemingly endless series of cross walks and straight line sidewalks.

Buildings form walls on each side of the street.

*Great architectural, and, street level eye candy trumps street layout.

SF? DC? Boston? Philly?

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Well why not? Propagating the race is important after all...

...and walkability/urbanity goes hand in hand with kid-friendliness. Sprawly auto-suburbs are the most kid-hostile places on the other hand.

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

[Innsertnamehere]

Halt everything! 10023 doesn't like children!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

The real problem is that when the roads for cars end, the access for peds and cyclists almost always does too.

I'm torn on this issue... on the one hand, cul-de-sac ridden suburbs would be greatly improved with the addition of bicycle and pedestrian connections.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical of separating the various modes too much... concentrating all forms of traffic in one place provides greater security against crime and wastes less space.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by 10023

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

I wonder if you realize when you're parodying yourself. My money (get it?) says no.