Giving you options for links because I'm comradely like that:

  • https://invidious.weblibre.org/watch?v=5ZwbZWrKbGI

  • https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=5ZwbZWrKbGI

  • http://c7hqkpkpemu6e7emz5b4vyz7idjgdvgaaa3dyimmeojqbgpea3xqjoid.onion/watch?v=5ZwbZWrKbGI

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZwbZWrKbGI

Not sure I agree with the thesis or not, but it's interesting to think about. It's true that there are lots of very good non-grid cities. I've always thought that the main purpose of grids is to be understandable to the human mind, which maybe isn't that important a goal, and lots of things flow well in a complex way: look at our own circulatory systems.

  • culpritus [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I've not read any of the arguments on this, but I think maybe this is a semantic terminology issue. I'll refer to the dutch design as an example. Permeability - as in having human scale ped and bike connecting paths across areas that can be described as grid-like are really awesome for urban life. You can take a walk/ride on various routes that are all fairly efficient while also not always taking the most direct route. The cars do not have this ability though, as they are not allowed to use the 'grid'. Cars have to take an indirect route and only briefly can enter into the human scale spaces. This is somewhat like the terrible suburbs model but done in an effectively urban context.

    The trick is to maintain permeability for people at this local scale, which is grid-like, but not necessarily a street grid built for cars going 20+ mph. Maybe this is addressed in the links, but that just my off-the-cuff reaction to the post title.

    edit: and now seeing the arguments, this is just another reason why a hex grid would be better