[ChrisZwolle]

What do you think is the best street layout? I'll start with some examples.

1. Large maze grid, major throughfares, quiet streets within.

2. Classic grid, fine maze, freeways needed because of number of intersections

3. Medium density suburban sprawl, no logical street pattern.

4. Rural city (Houston city proper)

5. Classic rectangular grid

6. Dutch style, lot of dead ends.

I personally prefer the first one with a decent density.

 

[Verso]

I prefer only the illogical street pattern, I find planned layouts boring. But Chris, by "illogical street pattern" you only have "medium density suburban sprawl" (#3), what about illogical street pattern in cities themselves, not suburbs? Most Austro-Hungarian cities are built like that and that's what I like. Here's one such example, the center of my city, Ljubljana:

:cheers:

 

[Majestic]

In terms of efficiency - #1
In terms of looking nice - Barcelona style

 

[TheCat]

Toronto is built largely like #1, and it seems to work quite well. The distance between major streets in the grid is usually around 2km, so it's easy to estimate distances by counting the number of such blocks one needs to drive. Of course, in the downtown core the distances become much smaller, so you end up having sometimes 200m between "major" streets, which resembles more the layout of #2, although they are rarely as large as the major streets uptown. This format is typical of many North American cities.

The suburbs are more varied, although (at least the ones around Toronto) they still follow the format of #1, except that the inner low-density residential streets do not follow any patterns, and can sometimes be winding and going in circles.

 

[Xusein]

Hartford is #2, mostly gridded. Works well, because it makes it easy to find locations faster.

BTW: That pic of Houston makes me happy that we have zoning laws here. :crazy:

 

[essendon bombers]

Australian cicites are a combination of #1 and #3. Melbourne is built mainly on a grid of roads. However, housing estates built in last twenty years or so follow the pattern set out in photo 3.

I like the layout of Australian cities and towns; it is simpler to find your way around town. In contrast, I'm not a big fan of street layouts in English cities and towns.

 

[Czas na Żywiec]

I grew up in an area like #2. And I still find it the best. If you ever get lost or take a wrong turn, just turn right 3 times and you'll be back on your original street. And it's easier to walk to places since everything is evenly spaced (for the most part).

My neighborhood:

 

[ChrisZwolle]

BTW: That pic of Houston makes me happy that we have zoning laws here. :crazy:

Yeah, Houston is quite a mess. The city takes up an unnecessary large area.

 

[Ron2K]

My part of Durban (Kloof) follows the illogical street pattern. Given the very hilly nature of the area (and of Durban generally), there's no real alternative.

 

[Svartmetall]

Planned cities look very boring. Much prefer the illogical street pattern.

 

[ChrisZwolle]

Crazy street pattern in Cape Coral, Florida:

 

[ChrisZwolle]

This surely scares off aliens:

 

[hoosier]

#1 because it allows through traffic to move efficiently and keeps it off of residential streets where children play.

 

[philvia]

#1 because it allows through traffic to move efficiently

i thought the exact opposite.
Los Angeles is largely built like that... hundreds of residential streets dump into one large "artery" road and builds up congestion extremely fast.

the grid is the most efficient and works best IMO.. who cares if its boring, how often are you up in the air looking down on it? A good combination of the grid and number streets/avenues makes it very easy to figure out how far away you are from an address... or even which direction or how to get there... all by just reciting the address.

 

[hoosier]

i thought the exact opposite.
Los Angeles is largely built like that... hundreds of residential streets dump into one large "artery" road and builds up congestion extremely fast.

the grid is the most efficient and works best IMO.. who cares if its boring, how often are you up in the air looking down on it? A good combination of the grid and number streets/avenues makes it very easy to figure out how far away you are from an address... or even which direction or how to get there... all by just reciting the address.

Maintaining a dense grid is cost prohibitive once you reach the less dense and far flung suburbs and outer city limits.

I don't want homes to abut highly travelled commuter thoroughfares.

Besides, option #1 is still a grid, meaning there are multiple routes going in a given direction.

 

[Kese]

I am not fond of ANY of these planned street patterns.
What you call "illogical", and what is almost exclusive in Hungary (and in Europe) we tend to call "grown" cities, that just grew more or less spontaniously. There may be some "planned" sections from time to time, but they also become integrated in the original texture. I think almost all of us prefer this here.

 

[thun]

The last two pics are just crazy. Where's the last one?

 

[Onur]

Classic grid rocks!

The others are look like Labyrinth and waste of gas.

 

[Chicagoago]

Chicago grid. I love it, you can't ever get lost. With all the trees on the road, it isn't really "boring". You can't see more than a few blocks down the road cause of the traffic and trees along the side.

 

[Patrick]

The last two pics are just crazy. Where's the last one?

I'd say in Rotonda
:crazy: