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.
I think the correlation argument is flawed. Grid cities tend to be new, younger, American cities built for cars. Non-grid cities tend to be old, European, built when walking and horses were the primary means of transportation. I think that being built for cars is affecting QoL. The video suggests that grid cities have lower QoL because they're worse for cars. But these European high-quality-of-life cities are not good for cars either.
Chicago poster here so I'm biased. I like our grid, although some of the utility has eroded since everyone has Google Maps now. Also it's cold as fuck in the giant wind tunnels downtown, maybe I didn't understand the video's claim about heat efficiency.