What Wrong With The Grid-System?

[fern244 1]

No grid = Realistic

People like realism over here.

[Glenni 1,444]

I just try to mix it,  a diagonal maze some places, and grids in other areas. I base my cities off cities in Norway, and by looking at the maps of these cities, they all tend to have a mixture of non-grid and grid in their cores. Hence why i try to recreate that.

[shmohel 1]

To add my own two cents of knowledge in real estate development . . .

Especially when it comes to suburbs, after WWII it became very popular to adopt a grid system for residential communities. The massive amounts of people moving to the suburbs required a quick way to build houses. Laying them out in a grid allowed for maximizing the amount of land used for building.

But, it created enviromental issues. Namely, with water drainage, and ashpalt heating. This is why many newer developers are taking the approach of aggregating houses around a circle, with common/shared green space. It decreases the amount of roads, increases the open spaces, and creates niche communities. Each have their advantages. Some developers are heavily pushing this new model, but others resist.

[Callbat 8]

But, it created enviromental issues. Namely, with water drainage, and ashpalt heating. This is why many newer developers are taking the approach of aggregating houses around a circle, with common/shared green space. It decreases the amount of roads, increases the open spaces, and creates niche communitiesquote>

Ahhh, yes, this is more or less what my neighbourhood looks like.

Glenni: Where did you get that Debenhams shopping centre that I see in your picture? (which might I add, is an excellent picture )

[krbe 193]

Slottet! Hvor???

[Cleaner475 150]

Inner City grid are sometimes quite common if not always able to see. Grid system are simple but as many peoplehave mentioned before they don't look particulary nice and don't have high realism. The traffic problems can be avoided though if you place a subway statiion and bus station at the end of each grid,

Richard

[Streetwise 3]

Whether or not I grid depends on what my city-wide and local goals are. If I want a very dense population, I'm more willing to grid than not so as to conserve space, or get as many sims as possible in a small amount of space. If, on the other hand, I want something less dense, or something more asthetic, I usually grid a lot less. It sometimes comes down to volume versus beauty.

Every city here on ST is a mix of asthetics and functionality, regardless of grid or non-grid city style. Also, everyone has their own style of thinking. Some think more abstractly (non-grid), while some think more linearly (grid). The bottom line is this: it all depends upon your tastes, goals, and thinking style. Therefore, much of it is psychological

[WillG_75 19]

I, personally, like to mix it up. For the downtown or very dense areas, I usually have a strict grid of streets, and as you move into the inner urban areas, I usually keep the grid, but use a few different angles, until I spread out into the suburbs

[Henry Midfield 3]

I remember a family friend mentioning how Adelaide (where she now lives) and Melbourne, with it's grid network is easy to navigate around, but Sydney and Tokyo (her hometown), which it is less grid-like is an absolute nightmare for her. I would feel the same way; I won't be able to survive without a map in Sydney. Tokyo's even worse considering that many of the smaller streets do not even have names, so I have absolutely no idea where the postal adress is located! The streets of Paris/London are lovely, though. Shame that there are limitations in computer programming and memory...I hope CitiesXL would accomodate buildings in oddly-shaped roads...

I think it is a matter of knowing where and when to use each layout, and how to deal with them...

[SC4BOY 20]

Most cities did not develop as a result of some "grand plan".. they evolved with a mix of development needs/objectives and geography.. with geography/topography being the MAJOR factor.. not some pie-in-the-sky ideal..

[_MostlyHarmless 17]

Coming from Chicago, I must say that grids are a reality. Chicago is perhaps one of the trailblazers for the gridded city. In real life it in fact DOES reduce congestion...if road A is not moving fast, just go 1/2 mile north to the next arterial and it may be moving more smoothly. Areas with out the grid usually have only 1 or 2 arterials serving the area, which means if anyone needs a through-street that road fills to capacity real quick. The grid also makes it insanely easy to navigate around the city. Lastly, the grid DOES make transit easier to plan and use. Using the bus in Chicago is a 2-seat ride ANYWHERE in the city. It's no wonder the CTA bus system has over 1 million daily riders (CTA rail = ~600,000).

So yes, I love grids, because thats what I know.

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: northsider1983 Coming from Chicago, I must say that grids are a reality. Chicago is perhaps one of the trailblazers for the gridded city. In real life it in fact DOES reduce congestion...if road A is not moving fast, just go 1/2 mile north to the next arterial and it may be moving more smoothly. Areas with out the grid usually have only 1 or 2 arterials serving the area, which means if anyone needs a through-street that road fills to capacity real quick. The grid also makes it insanely easy to navigate around the city. Lastly, the grid DOES make transit easier to plan and use. Using the bus in Chicago is a 2-seat ride ANYWHERE in the city. It's no wonder the CTA bus system has over 1 million daily riders (CTA rail = ~600,000).

So yes, I love grids, because thats what I know.

quote>

 

Thank you northsider. Now a world class city with 3 million can't be boring. I rest my case

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: fern244 No grid = Realistic

People like realism over here.quote>

 

How so? A huge suburban city is realistic?

[TRNSTN 0]

Originally posted by: Maxis92

Originally posted by: fern244 No grid = Realistic

People like realism over here.quote>

 

How so? A huge suburban city is realistic?quote>

Los Angeles?

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

Originally posted by: Maxis92

Originally posted by: fern244 No grid = Realistic

People like realism over here.quote>

 

How so? A huge suburban city is realistic?quote>

Los Angeles?quote>

 

I'm not even going to start a discussion about all the problems with Los Angeles.

 

[shmohel 1]

Originally posted by: Streetwise Whether or not I grid depends on what my city-wide and local goals are. If I want a very dense population, I'm more willing to grid than not so as to conserve space, or get as many sims as possible in a small amount of space. If, on the other hand, I want something less dense, or something more asthetic, I usually grid a lot less. It sometimes comes down to volume versus beauty.

quote>

Grids are actually not that efficient in saving space. They waste a lot of space in roads. See below image taken from this article.

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/socio75.html

I began a thread to talk about this issue.

[Hahayoudied 3]

What if there was a heavy traffic? Then is the non grid is still efficient?

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied What if there was a heavy traffic? Then is the non grid is still efficient?quote>

 

What? I don't quite understand what you're saying.

[shmohel 1]

Efficiency in terms of space saving is what we were talking about. With a grid, to get people to the places they need to get to requires more roads covering more total ground space.

If you want to delve further into the idea, then I suggest you take a look at the topic regarding Fused Grids. Simply put, higher traffic routes surround less trafficked routes. SimHoTToDDy has some great pictures of the plan in action.

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: shmohel Efficiency in terms of space saving is what we were talking about. With a grid, to get people to the places they need to get to requires more roads covering more total ground space.

If you want to delve further into the idea, then I suggest you take a look at the topic regarding Fused Grids. Simply put, higher traffic routes surround less trafficked routes. SimHoTToDDy has some great pictures of the plan in action.quote>

 

Actually, I saw your thread and it works very nicely for a suburb. You did a good job planning it too. However, it doesn't at all promote big cities with high density or direct-route mass transit. One plus a grid does have is better walkability so the person doesn't have to rely on the automobile. Really, you should be saving more space if you're building closely and up instead of out.

[shmohel 1]

Originally posted by: Maxis92Actually, I saw your thread and it works very nicely for a suburb. You did a good job planning it too. However, it doesn't at all promote big cities with high density or direct-route mass transit. One plus a grid does have is better walkability so the person doesn't have to rely on the automobile. Really, you should be saving more space if you're building closely and up instead of out. quote>

Absolutely! I agree 100%. The Fused Grid is certainly much better for suburban and residential areas, than a downtown commercial district. The entire point of system is to take the high points of various planning methods and "fuse" them.

Therefore, it is a combination of the simple navigation, reduction of traffic in residential neighborhoods, promotion of communities/neighborliness, increase in foot traffic, reduction in asphalt (and its inherent negative enviromental effects), and an increase in green spaces. Granted not all this is applicable in SC4 since roads have no effect on ground temperature and water saturation.

A properly executed system would increase walkability by having foot paths and cut throughs between the various inner roadsystem. This idea is called: filtered permeability.  Simply put, vehicles are restricted from access, but pedestrians are not. This is desirable for many reasons, not the least of which is safety. So, the one point I disagree with you on is that a "strict grid" would provide greater walkability than the Fused Grid.

Therefore, since the idea of the Fused Grid is to limit traffic and force it to travel on the periphery (thus being more efficient) it is not ideally suited for most downtown city areas. However, If a system were built properly utilizing public transportation, I think the system might be adaptable for commercial areas as well.

Maybe not the most cost efficient for a SC CBD, but it might have its practical advantages in real world application. The problem I see is it would be very expensive because of the huge reliance upon public transportation needs. If cars are forced to a periphery, then people need great access from some other manner.

---

Lastly, I want to make it clear that this is not my plan whatsoever. I am not an urban planner. Instead, I am simple a person interested in real estate development who did some research. This is the result of my findings. It stems from a dissertation put together by some academics and is slowly catching on in various communities. (I believe this is an area where those Canucks up there have been having great success.)

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: shmohel

Originally posted by: Maxis92Actually, I saw your thread and it works very nicely for a suburb. You did a good job planning it too. However, it doesn't at all promote big cities with high density or direct-route mass transit. One plus a grid does have is better walkability so the person doesn't have to rely on the automobile. Really, you should be saving more space if you're building closely and up instead of out. quote>

Absolutely! I agree 100%. The Fused Grid is certainly much better for suburban and residential areas, than a downtown commercial district. The entire point of system is to take the high points of various planning methods and "fuse" them.

Therefore, it is a combination of the simple navigation, reduction of traffic in residential neighborhoods, promotion of communities/neighborliness, increase in foot traffic, reduction in asphalt (and its inherent negative enviromental effects), and an increase in green spaces. Granted not all this is applicable in SC4 since roads have no effect on ground temperature and water saturation.

A properly executed system would increase walkability by having foot paths and cut throughs between the various inner roadsystem. This idea is called: filtered permeability.  Simply put, vehicles are restricted from access, but pedestrians are not. This is desirable for many reasons, not the least of which is safety. So, the one point I disagree with you on is that a "strict grid" would provide greater walkability than the Fused Grid.

Therefore, since the idea of the Fused Grid is to limit traffic and force it to travel on the periphery (thus being more efficient) it is not ideally suited for most downtown city areas. However, If a system were built properly utilizing public transportation, I think the system might be adaptable for commercial areas as well.

Maybe not the most cost efficient for a SC CBD, but it might have its practical advantages in real world application. The problem I see is it would be very expensive because of the huge reliance upon public transportation needs. If cars are forced to a periphery, then people need great access from some other manner.

---

Lastly, I want to make it clear that this is not my plan whatsoever. I am not an urban planner. Instead, I am simple a person interested in real estate development who did some research. This is the result of my findings. It stems from a dissertation put together by some academics and is slowly catching on in various communities. (I believe this is an area where those Canucks up there have been having great success.)quote>

 

I see your point and again that's a good concept.

However, Your setup doesn't give your sims any reason to walk around since they must got all the way back one direction and around just to get somewhere. You must have a car to get wherever you're going.

And I think I've already mentioned this, but my discussion doesn't involve bedroom suburbs. I'm talking about your main central city and it's neighborhoods. You can't expect a concept like this to work in a city with 1 million + people and not have traffic issues.

[shmohel 1]

I think it might be worth exploring. Perhaps I will try using it in a CBD to see if I can prove you wrong. Sounds like a challenge! :-)

[Maxis92 11]

Originally posted by: shmohel I think it might be worth exploring. Perhaps I will try using it in a CBD to see if I can prove you wrong. Sounds like a challenge! :-)quote>

 

Sure! that would work.

[SIMplMn9 0]

You know.. the first time I commented I was basically saying dude your stupid for likeing grids...

But here is the thing, I bet the majority of the players live in a suburban style area.. or in a European city where planning went back thousand of years...

The most efficient downtown/main commericial area are gridded, which is good because it help traffic flow in that area and allows better buisness. However go tot eh residential sector, and roads break the grid for reasons. One IS to provide a kind of halt to street racing that normally spawns in gridded streets. They like the suburbs because the heat mostly stick with the money centers.

Also, there is a compromise, which I do with my cities. I grid my main commerical centers, yes, but I always will throw a diagonal cross road in there. That is technically breaking the grid. Sometimes a city will have a kind of roundabout road, which would provide a kind of expressway around the main downtown center.

[shmohel 1]

Originally posted by: SIMplMn9or in a European city where planning went back thousand of years...quote>

That's not an excuse NOT to use grids. Gridded city design goes back several millenia. The Romans were known for their heavy use of city planning twith grids. Why? Because it was more efficient for their army to build cities in preconceived geometrical patterns.

Albeit London and Paris are not the best examples, in Europe there are plenty of examples of cities built with grids: Mannheim, Germany; Glasgow, UK; parts of Edinburgh.

[greg22 0]

the grid system is not good urban planning, you can actually fit more buildings in a "loops and cal-de-sacks" system than a grid, the grid system is 60% less efficent than loops and cal-de-sacs. But in terms of traffic, grid is better, but not allways, there is no perfect system.

[PogoTribal 1]

Originally posted by: Glenni I just try to mix it,  a diagonal maze some places, and grids in other areas. I base my cities off cities in Norway, and by looking at the maps of these cities, they all tend to have a mixture of non-grid and grid in their cores. Hence why i try to recreate that.

quote>

I didn't realize there were this many diagonal buildings on the STEX....

[City2TheMax 3]

Originally posted by: greg22 the grid system is not good urban planning, you can actually fit more buildings in a "loops and cal-de-sacks" system than a grid, the grid system is 60% less efficent than loops and cal-de-sacs. But in terms of traffic, grid is better, but not allways, there is no perfect system.quote>

Could you perhaps provide us with a reference to the 60% thing? B/c I never heard of that...

I think that in real life it is so much easier to build downtown cores with grids. As a real life city planner (pure speculation), I believe it would be plain easier to simply build straight roads that cross each other. Why go out of your way to make roads that wind around in odd ways and make building construction including land zoning so much more complicated when you could have nice, clean cut squares?

I think that for suburbs this does not necessarily apply, and as we can see many new American suburbs have windy and more interesting roads. This is b/c they are developed in smaller patches and are meant to have better aesthetic value.

If you've ever been to Washington D.C. you can see the obvious effects of an American non-grid system (it is much more European in design). The traffic there is hell! But if you've been to a gridded city it is so much easier to find places and drive without worrying when to turn or where to watch out for cars as they are less likely to appear out of unexpected places.

This is all my opinion and I don't have any factual information to back it up.

[TV-VCR 14]

I think the main pet peeve is that it's highly unrealistic when it's the WHOLE city. And the fact that in SC4, you can't make diagonal grids that easily either.

To achieve an optimal layout, there should be combinations of different styles.