Which city layout is the best and why is it grid?

Which city layout is the best and why is it grid?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IvsHvfs3G1M
youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c
amazon.com/Carfree-Design-Manual-J-Crawford/dp/9057270609/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

BARCELONA

Fitted L's

hexagon grid

This is the most autistic man made thing in Argentina

butifel

Is this city aviable to download?

Why would this be an advantage over pic related?

>pic related

Amsterdam

youtube.com/watch?v=IvsHvfs3G1M

why?

City grids are disgusting
They should evolve naturally
I hate futuristic and symmetrical shit

You would never be able to build the density of Manhattan without a uniform grid pattern. The traffic lights are timed and the north-south thoroughfares are one ways. Lower Manhattan isn't uniform and driving there is even more of a nightmare than the rest of NYC

This tbqh fâm

The city without layout is the best city

you can quote me later ;-)

I dont understand people who complain about grids because "they would get lost since everything looks the same"

-the buildings dont all look the same
-the regularity of the grid allows you to simply deduce how to reach a place, the streets are straight lines that are either parallel or cut each other in 90 degrees, like a chess board, and paralel streets have the same numbering for each parallel block.

yeah

this is for all the antigrid people out there
which one you would more likely get lost? Tokyo or new york???

>being this autistic

VERY good city layout A+

How does anyone not like the grid?

It must be a "muh comfy" thing

>he doesn't like to get lost in cities and walk/drive for hours
It is like you don't enjoy life

It must be cubic and very dense with all the skyscrapers at the same height, and streets large enough to not feel oppressed.

Not as efficient and creates more intersections than necessary.

Eurosnobs defending inefficient city layouts because "muh history"

The most important aspects to whether of not a city looks aesthetic is density, architecture, and the skyline.

Grids have actually proven to be inferior. People are not willing to walk as far if the streets are grids because they overestimate the distance.

They also don't take into account geography such as hills. The organic medieval layout is actually the most efficient. It arises out of natural paths, and flows down the best paths in hilly terrain and people are willing to walk farther in them.

I've read up on city design and urban planning. The last 500 years city planning has slowly gotten worse.

spidergrams are the best desu

i like grid towns
ancient greeks build their cities that way
build until you hit natural limits where you put walls up
dont understand why europeans bitch about america every time

in my experience, people who live in grids measure distance in blocks, so they know that if they run 10 blocks through a street, they run 1 km, since each block is 100 mts.

define "naturally"

we have both grids and non-grids and other types of sectors

looks/feels either horrible or awesome

grids on slopes look magical too

This, the non square part in the hills looks nice too.

Natural cities look like braincells more or less

Grid cities look like hideous man made trash

Really makes you think.

>I've read up on city design and urban planning. The last 500 years city planning has slowly gotten worse.
As an actual urban planner you are retarded and everything in your post is retarded.And so are these guys.

Sorry. Didn't mean to tag you here

>This makes the German orgasm

all of the dark spots are black people shooting eachother

Autistic tier

I like concentric circles

where is that?

it's a fucking videogame dude

It's just a game lol, the same than , not a real city

Airplane, obviously.
Brasília

It's beautiful

>grid
>soul-crushing uniformity
>good

fuck off
t. Bostonian

Radial / natural cities are patrician as fuck, makes the landscape so much more interesting and confuses the fuck out of normie tourists that come to visit

but Chicago is disgusting...

grid system is depressing as fuck

Why do so many foreign city use grids?

That's the laziest design possible.

*cities

now that i put my glasses on, i see it is indeed a game lol

Washington, DC is laid out like a European city and it is a mess.

that's still a grid

no it's not, Paris is literally laid out for easy crowd control, DC is laid out like some meme occultist symbolism shit.

...

>Washington, DC is laid out like a European city
I'm pretty sure not a single Dutch city is designed like that.

>tfw its proabably a giant human transmutation circle

we are all fugged

Tokyo because I don't speak Japanese.

No.
I like my city without grids.

youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c

Interesting video about cities

anything built after 1910 is cancer, there is no need for this 69569 hour video

very plebby opinion

Perhaps, but its grid is God-tier.

>not appreciating the vast levels of ordnung

t. retard who probably lives in some ugly council shithole like Slough or milton keynes and cries whenever he sees an ugly 70s council block being demolished

>not sure if canal or street
sat nav turn by turn leading you into a canal

can it fly?

canals

This makes the European orgasm

Sydney is the pits mate

Wrong

No, that makes us puke. Disgusting city planning, wtf

>As an actual urban planner you are retarded and everything in your post is retarded

And what they taught you in your class was bullshit.

Read this book: amazon.com/Carfree-Design-Manual-J-Crawford/dp/9057270609/

Is it the place that was a fortress at the beginning and rebuilt to a town later?

>a fucking leaf

my city's down town can be a bit fuggy, because the elevation off of the water to like 3 blocks up is a difference of about 30 feet, so lots of roads, sharp turns, narrow roads and confusing intersections
also a lot of the grounds that aren't developed there (left side of pic) are because it's church ground and all they've done is set up a couple parks and bury people occasionally, a lot of unused catholic lands

the right hand side is just rocky green hills that aren't developed at all except for a cheeky republican flag right at the top

You seem like the kind of person to argue with a doctor on a diagnosis because google told you it was something else. Also congratulations you have one book that agrees with you.

Meanwhile most actual planners know that non-grid cities are confusing and harder to manage infrastructure with and are only acceptable in a car less world in cities with an extremely small geographic area. If you do have a society with cars then god help you in a non grid format city. Grid cities facilitate easier transit of both people and goods. You think those old European cities are nice but the old sections are small in scale so the disadvantages of a haphazard system isn't outright apparent. Try living in a modern suburb where you have to loop around a mile just to get out of your track home neighborhood because some retard thought cul-de-sacs and winding roads was a good idea. Grid formats are taken as the given and they have known this for millennia, we have only now taken to it with the advent of centralized city planning.

here's the city + metro area

...

...

...

...

>Try living in a modern suburb where you have to loop around a mile just to get out of your track home neighborhood because some retard thought cul-de-sacs and winding roads was a good idea.

That isn't like old medieval layouts, they are connected. The stupid suburban layout is a pathetic attempt at trying to mimic old chaotic street layout even though it looks nothing like it.

>society with cars
Objectively shit, makes your city noisy polluted shithole with ugly infrastructure and endless suburban sprawl.

...

that's literally the worst part of town to walk through. the blocks are way too big and the buildings are too tall

are spaniards afraid of tall things

I'm just saying that it's not very walkable whereas downtown barcelona it's no problem to walk around from place to place

how does the height of buildings affect walking distance though

Nice hive.

It wouldn't be that hard to convert it to car free city I bet though.

Imagine you need to go to the post office to drop a package off.

Would you rather make an "L" by going south on Mission Boulevard and making a right westward once you reach Magnolia avenue continuing 3 blocks until you reach the post office?

Or would you rather go on the "Magical Mystery Tour" where you follow Darvey road, take a left on Canterbury, another left at manchester a few bloc- wait there are no blocks. You turn left after 4000 paces, go down manchester for a quarter mile so you can go back onto Darvey because it fucking cuts out for a half mile at the city core because there is no standardization. Continue for a bit on the oh so pretty curving street until you reach a giant smoldering hell because an entire neighborhood caught fire and the fire department can't reach it because they spent the last half hour trying to bank some ridiculous corners and couldn't take a straight shot to the fire so 1,700 people are now dead, and you still haven't found the fucking post office.

>Or would you rather go on the "Magical Mystery Tour" where you follow Darvey road, take a left on Canterbury, another left at manchester a few bloc- wait there are no blocks. You turn left after 4000 paces, go down manchester for a quarter mile so you can go back onto Darvey because it fucking cuts out for a half mile at the city core because there is no standardization. Continue for a bit on the oh so pretty curving street until you reach a giant smoldering hell because an entire neighborhood caught fire and the fire department can't reach it because they spent the last half hour trying to bank some ridiculous corners and couldn't take a straight shot to the fire so 1,700 people are now dead, and you still haven't found the fucking post office.

That was a big strawman wall of text. They wouldn't be the most valuable areas in the world if they were oh so horrible to live in.

>That was a big strawman wall of text.
That wasn't a strawman. That is exactly what happened in the cities before planning centralization and grid formats.

>They wouldn't be the most valuable areas in the world if they were oh so horrible to live in.
Why do you think the idea of suburban developments gained traction in the first place? Those cities were hellish enough to drive the upper and middle classes out of the city entirely. Thy are nice now because of shit like pic related.

The planners in Paris knew the haphazard plans were stupid as shit but they couldn't tear the entire city down to start again so they made as may straight boulevards as they could.

In the pic the black lines are from the old existing streets, the red lines were the new boulevards as they tried to come as close to a grid pattern as possible.

Because niggers started to move in and suburbs were just cheaper?

>Why do you think the idea of suburban developments gained traction in the first place? Those cities were hellish enough to drive the upper and middle classes out of the city entirely.
Because back then they didn't have proper medicine, sanitation systems, or hygiene?

Modern technology has largely ruled most of the old negatives of city's void. Only real problem is that now they are all built around the car.

You talk all this shit, but haven't read that book. Why don't you go read it yourself and not just make assumptions.

Grid cities are for efficiency, not for wellbeing.
Life isn't fucking simcity, user.

>Or would you rather go on the "Magical Mystery Tour"
Yes. Part of living in a city is enjoying its nooks and crannies.
Do you care about enjoying life as is happens or are you trying to get to the end of it as expediently as possible?

Most American cities are grid s, thank God. I've driven in enough cities without a grid to know it's frequently hellish. Boston is a prime example. The confusing and poorly designed Street system makes aggression mandatory if you want to get anywhere, you have to change lanes to get anywhere with little time to do so. Having to cross 5 lanes of dense traffic in a quarter mile means pissing a lot of people off.

It's why drivers from Massachusetts are called massholes.

Hexagon grids just wouldn't work. To go straight you'd have to make alternating left and right turns which means changing lanes every intersection.

Non grids may feel more "comfy" out something but they're terribly inefficient.

This is simply terrible.

>Because back then they didn't have proper medicine, sanitation systems, or hygiene?
And because it is very difficult for public services to manage and reach a non grid city. Expanding sanitation infrastructure is dependent on centralization for which putting the infrastructure into grids is the most efficient way.

Well being is tied to in large part being able to get to work on time.
>Life isn't fucking simcity, user.
It is when you are a professional and not masturbating over Venice. Ask most respectable planning professional and they will point you towards the grid (with some deviance's allowed as all plans fall apart in application).

>You talk all this shit, but haven't read that book. Why don't you go read it yourself and not just make assumptions.
I looked it up and what in the fucking fuck is this shit? I'm looking at this pic and I am wondering why anybody would think this is a good idea. Keep in mind if there is one book pointing to this and an entire field pointing in the other, it should be obvious which one you pick.

That is nice when you are visiting a city but certainly not when you are living in it and trying to get to work every day.

>driving
>driving
>driving

Fuck off, cities made for cars are hell, people live in cities, not cars.