Grid is best for efficiency, but some cities like DC have diagonal roads to put emphasis on certain landmarks and corridors. In the case of old European cities like you mentioned, they tend to be ancient and medieval and weren't built to accommodate modern infrastructure. In your case, a single lot might not equipped to demonstrate these design principles. You're not crazy, though.
As a New Yorker living on the east side, I'd kill for an anti-Broadway. It would make going to places like Chelsea or the West Village by bike or foot so much more convenient.
Some European cities have grids, many don't. Some had grids, but lost them over time. There is nothing inherently great or bad about the grid. It really comes down to the context, the size of your site, and your overall goals. In addition to consistency with surroundings in your case, and economic efficiency, the grid is ordered and easy for people to understand. Personally, I think block length and permeability are more important things to argue about.
I agree with you. But in my mind, to say in one breath "we are prioritizing ped and bike mobility" and in the very next breath say, "we are covering 50% of the site in asphalt meant for vehicular circulation" just doesn't work.
That is something to resolve through dedicated, separated bike/ped lanes and well designed intersections. It is not an issue which derives from a grid plan.
In all honesty, we can't give you very good input without knowing a lot more about the site.
I finished up grad school and studio last summer. My unsolicited word of advice for school is to fight for your opinion for a bit and then when it's clear you can't win, just move on. In the real world, at least for the beginning of your career, most your ideas are going to get squashed a lot anyway by bosses/coworkers/clients/community/elected officials, etc., even if they're amazing. I'm only a little jaded on this. Argue your point and then if you still can't convince them, shrug it off and move on to the next idea.
To follow up on this, one “trick” to help you get more support is to find out what others want and talk about how your proposal advances their goals, or modify your proposal so that it advances their goals.
For example if one person on your team really cares about biking, then talk about the benefits of a non-grid for biking. If another cares about the environment, talk about how a non-grid is better environmentally. Etc.
This helps for sure. Either way, imposing some arbitrary tangle of streets just to defy the grid is not a good move. Finding context within the site and it's surroundings that justify a new system is a good way to start. Otherwise, you're not accomplishing anything. Use this information to bolster your idea and paired with the advice above should help.
No, I wouldn't make a tangle of streets just to defy the grid. In fact, right now, due to the weird shape of our site, historical building preservation, and some topo, we are scratched a hole in our heads trying to get the grid extension to work. Meanwhile we could just not be so scared of some angled or curved streets here and there, align them with POIs, and continue the grid where nothing else is called for and/or it's the path of least resistance.
Sorry, wasn't insinuating bad judgement was just unsure of you reasoning. Seems like the topo gives you an opportunity to allow the terrain to dictate how streets entering the site meet as they did in organically organized, unplanned towns. Anyway, good luck and thanks for a distraction from my own master project.
Good advice. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make about the grid... literally the main aspiration of our design is to prioritize bike and ped circulation. Call me crazy but I find it a lot easier to bike (and walk) when you aren't flanked by vehicles and then confronted with a 4 way stop every 300 feet.
Yea it's a hard pill to swallow but I did realize that first semester of grad school. I am not going to argue with them, but just posted to vent/get some dialogue on the topic. Unfortunately I have found that most people in this program interpret debate and curiosity more like personal attacks... and it has me a bit irked!
To reduce the chance of others taking it as personal attacks, I’d recommend some reading on the practise of dialogue.
“Dialogue” by Williams Isaacs for example
I’d carry on with grids as well. But might vary them in sizes or add some diagonal roads to spice things up a little. I’m personally fond of European organic road layouts really. But I reckon they built them out off available technology, topography, key locations, etc., which seems different from modern day situations.
But anyways, it’d be interesting to hear your side of the argument as well. Like what do you propose or what are its advantages?
Yea so I actually have nothing against grids (I mean, I find them a bit boring but that's a minor qualm). In this case, though, we have agreed to make bike and ped mobility a top priority. Then my classmates get to work covering half the site with asphalt meant exclusively for vehicles. Like, maybe that's fine, but don't bullshit me by saying this is how we prioritize ped and bike circulation. Additionally, since the site is a funky shape and has some weird obstacles, we are actually working kind of hard just to force that existing grid pattern to fit. If we actually put in some ped/bike only paths, aligned them with POIs and off-site connections, we'd have a simple solution that actually supports our guiding principles. Yea, there would be a handful of funky-looking (at least in plan, at least in the western US) streets, but we could continue the existing grid where it is the path of least resistance. I've never argued for making a twisty turny mess of streets just for fun, but I think we would barely (if at all) need to compromise on 'efficiency' to have the best of both worlds.
Anyways, all this talk of 'efficiency' but -especially when our top goal is bike/ped connectivity- what about efficiency for bikers and peds? I don't know about you, but I bike/walk a lot more efficiently when I don't have to wait for a crossing light or vehicles ever 300 feet. Biking on a dedicated bike path without crossed vehicular traffic is easily several times faster, easier, and safer than biking on the side of a street with cars and intersections. And so my next claim is that, if we are *really* prioritizing those modalities we claim to be, do we need straight lines and 4 way intersections? Or can we have a nice, slightly meandering path in a general Northeast direction instead of a strict North-south alignment with 90 degree turns?
Again I am not saying I am "right" because I don't know. But I suspect there is some merit to the ideas here and I wish my classmates and professors would be more willing to explore the idea instead of defaulting to the status quo.
Long rant lol woops.
Yeah i could make several different responses but it's tough to tell what's going on without seeing it.
But i would suggest against clinging to the idea that four-way intersections inconvenience the biker to a degree that it's worth making it your thesis on why to "break" the grid.
Dutch cities are the gold standard of bikeability and their patterns are far denser with 90 degree four way intersections. The reason why it's successful just has to do with how they deprioritize cars.
Making outside connections, difficult topography, natural barriers, etc. Those are much stronger theses and at least one of those dynamics seem to be existing in this project (if I'm reading you correctly). It seems like you tried those appeals so 🤷.
There is nothing wrong with a grid, look at Barcelona. It’s one of the most profitable cities on Earth, is human-friendly, and very efficient.
Just keep in mind that Barcelona has an impressive public infrastructure that is not car-centric.
Note that the centre of Edinburgh (indeed the world heritage site) includes both the medieval, meandering part (“the old town”) and an orderly, planned grid (“the new town”).
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/
The only way you can prove anyone wrong or right is by the design you're about to produce...
It's just a university design studio. Feel free to experiment. If not now, when can you? It's not like you can be failed just for using a different starting point to others
Yeah this changes things, you wanting to deviate from the neighborhood pattern for aesthetics is probably being seen as a vanity move by your group.
There are good reasons to deviate from a grid, by the way. Especially when topography is difficult and/or stormwater is a point of emphasis. But I don't think that's within the scope of your course or expertise.
The good news is, no one experiences life from 3000 feet in the air. Think of what you really want out of the Florence precedent, is it tiny right-of-ways and pedestrian-only commercial streets? Is it public spaces it key intersections?
All of these can be accomplished in a grid and are assets you can supply to your team. But going forward, you have to market these desires, appeal to what they care about, and sell them on why you think these ground level experiences make the project stronger.
If you can't explain why you're making certain moves to your teammates, then your reviewers will definitely see right through it. Think of it less as building utopia with compromises and think of it more as building a cooperative bulletproof bunker your reviewers want to blow up. Your teammates have to sit in presentation as well and they would rather their answer be "we thought this move was good because x,y, and z" as opposed to "we wanted medieval streets just because".
A grid is efficient for delivering services, it doesn't necessarily mean cars.
Make some streets pedestrian only, at level crossings, might drop a few pedestrian alleys mid block, a block size park in the middle,... Now there's no straight line for cars and plenty of spaces for pedestrian to develop their own wandering routes through the site.
Look at Groningen- a university city in North Netherlands.
Maybe reach out to their architecture school (Hanza and RUG universities) and see if someone will have a conversation with you on zoom to bounce ideas off.
Grid is best for efficiency, but some cities like DC have diagonal roads to put emphasis on certain landmarks and corridors. In the case of old European cities like you mentioned, they tend to be ancient and medieval and weren't built to accommodate modern infrastructure. In your case, a single lot might not equipped to demonstrate these design principles. You're not crazy, though.
As a New Yorker living on the east side, I'd kill for an anti-Broadway. It would make going to places like Chelsea or the West Village by bike or foot so much more convenient.
Some European cities have grids, many don't. Some had grids, but lost them over time. There is nothing inherently great or bad about the grid. It really comes down to the context, the size of your site, and your overall goals. In addition to consistency with surroundings in your case, and economic efficiency, the grid is ordered and easy for people to understand. Personally, I think block length and permeability are more important things to argue about.
I agree with you. But in my mind, to say in one breath "we are prioritizing ped and bike mobility" and in the very next breath say, "we are covering 50% of the site in asphalt meant for vehicular circulation" just doesn't work.
That is something to resolve through dedicated, separated bike/ped lanes and well designed intersections. It is not an issue which derives from a grid plan. In all honesty, we can't give you very good input without knowing a lot more about the site.
I finished up grad school and studio last summer. My unsolicited word of advice for school is to fight for your opinion for a bit and then when it's clear you can't win, just move on. In the real world, at least for the beginning of your career, most your ideas are going to get squashed a lot anyway by bosses/coworkers/clients/community/elected officials, etc., even if they're amazing. I'm only a little jaded on this. Argue your point and then if you still can't convince them, shrug it off and move on to the next idea.
To follow up on this, one “trick” to help you get more support is to find out what others want and talk about how your proposal advances their goals, or modify your proposal so that it advances their goals. For example if one person on your team really cares about biking, then talk about the benefits of a non-grid for biking. If another cares about the environment, talk about how a non-grid is better environmentally. Etc.
This helps for sure. Either way, imposing some arbitrary tangle of streets just to defy the grid is not a good move. Finding context within the site and it's surroundings that justify a new system is a good way to start. Otherwise, you're not accomplishing anything. Use this information to bolster your idea and paired with the advice above should help.
No, I wouldn't make a tangle of streets just to defy the grid. In fact, right now, due to the weird shape of our site, historical building preservation, and some topo, we are scratched a hole in our heads trying to get the grid extension to work. Meanwhile we could just not be so scared of some angled or curved streets here and there, align them with POIs, and continue the grid where nothing else is called for and/or it's the path of least resistance.
Sorry, wasn't insinuating bad judgement was just unsure of you reasoning. Seems like the topo gives you an opportunity to allow the terrain to dictate how streets entering the site meet as they did in organically organized, unplanned towns. Anyway, good luck and thanks for a distraction from my own master project.
Good advice. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make about the grid... literally the main aspiration of our design is to prioritize bike and ped circulation. Call me crazy but I find it a lot easier to bike (and walk) when you aren't flanked by vehicles and then confronted with a 4 way stop every 300 feet.
Great point. Make it relevant to their interests so they care a little more or are more willing to consider yours.
Yea it's a hard pill to swallow but I did realize that first semester of grad school. I am not going to argue with them, but just posted to vent/get some dialogue on the topic. Unfortunately I have found that most people in this program interpret debate and curiosity more like personal attacks... and it has me a bit irked!
To reduce the chance of others taking it as personal attacks, I’d recommend some reading on the practise of dialogue. “Dialogue” by Williams Isaacs for example
I’d carry on with grids as well. But might vary them in sizes or add some diagonal roads to spice things up a little. I’m personally fond of European organic road layouts really. But I reckon they built them out off available technology, topography, key locations, etc., which seems different from modern day situations. But anyways, it’d be interesting to hear your side of the argument as well. Like what do you propose or what are its advantages?
Yea so I actually have nothing against grids (I mean, I find them a bit boring but that's a minor qualm). In this case, though, we have agreed to make bike and ped mobility a top priority. Then my classmates get to work covering half the site with asphalt meant exclusively for vehicles. Like, maybe that's fine, but don't bullshit me by saying this is how we prioritize ped and bike circulation. Additionally, since the site is a funky shape and has some weird obstacles, we are actually working kind of hard just to force that existing grid pattern to fit. If we actually put in some ped/bike only paths, aligned them with POIs and off-site connections, we'd have a simple solution that actually supports our guiding principles. Yea, there would be a handful of funky-looking (at least in plan, at least in the western US) streets, but we could continue the existing grid where it is the path of least resistance. I've never argued for making a twisty turny mess of streets just for fun, but I think we would barely (if at all) need to compromise on 'efficiency' to have the best of both worlds. Anyways, all this talk of 'efficiency' but -especially when our top goal is bike/ped connectivity- what about efficiency for bikers and peds? I don't know about you, but I bike/walk a lot more efficiently when I don't have to wait for a crossing light or vehicles ever 300 feet. Biking on a dedicated bike path without crossed vehicular traffic is easily several times faster, easier, and safer than biking on the side of a street with cars and intersections. And so my next claim is that, if we are *really* prioritizing those modalities we claim to be, do we need straight lines and 4 way intersections? Or can we have a nice, slightly meandering path in a general Northeast direction instead of a strict North-south alignment with 90 degree turns? Again I am not saying I am "right" because I don't know. But I suspect there is some merit to the ideas here and I wish my classmates and professors would be more willing to explore the idea instead of defaulting to the status quo. Long rant lol woops.
u/GottaLoveGrids I think this is also a response to your comment so instead of copy pasting wall of text I'm just tagging you
Yeah i could make several different responses but it's tough to tell what's going on without seeing it. But i would suggest against clinging to the idea that four-way intersections inconvenience the biker to a degree that it's worth making it your thesis on why to "break" the grid. Dutch cities are the gold standard of bikeability and their patterns are far denser with 90 degree four way intersections. The reason why it's successful just has to do with how they deprioritize cars. Making outside connections, difficult topography, natural barriers, etc. Those are much stronger theses and at least one of those dynamics seem to be existing in this project (if I'm reading you correctly). It seems like you tried those appeals so 🤷.
There is nothing wrong with a grid, look at Barcelona. It’s one of the most profitable cities on Earth, is human-friendly, and very efficient. Just keep in mind that Barcelona has an impressive public infrastructure that is not car-centric.
It’s your homework, what do You think would be better?
Note that the centre of Edinburgh (indeed the world heritage site) includes both the medieval, meandering part (“the old town”) and an orderly, planned grid (“the new town”). https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/
The only way you can prove anyone wrong or right is by the design you're about to produce... It's just a university design studio. Feel free to experiment. If not now, when can you? It's not like you can be failed just for using a different starting point to others
I totally agree! But it's a group project and I am outnumbered.
Oh, I must have missed that point, sorry! Well, then if you can't go wild in plan, try going wild in section!
Here's where you learn: Planning is a political process.
Yea :(
Yeah this changes things, you wanting to deviate from the neighborhood pattern for aesthetics is probably being seen as a vanity move by your group. There are good reasons to deviate from a grid, by the way. Especially when topography is difficult and/or stormwater is a point of emphasis. But I don't think that's within the scope of your course or expertise. The good news is, no one experiences life from 3000 feet in the air. Think of what you really want out of the Florence precedent, is it tiny right-of-ways and pedestrian-only commercial streets? Is it public spaces it key intersections? All of these can be accomplished in a grid and are assets you can supply to your team. But going forward, you have to market these desires, appeal to what they care about, and sell them on why you think these ground level experiences make the project stronger. If you can't explain why you're making certain moves to your teammates, then your reviewers will definitely see right through it. Think of it less as building utopia with compromises and think of it more as building a cooperative bulletproof bunker your reviewers want to blow up. Your teammates have to sit in presentation as well and they would rather their answer be "we thought this move was good because x,y, and z" as opposed to "we wanted medieval streets just because".
["Everyone likes the grid plan"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9awJCyjt550)
Doesn’t Florence have a rough grid? Like it’s not perfect but there are blocks no?
A grid is efficient for delivering services, it doesn't necessarily mean cars. Make some streets pedestrian only, at level crossings, might drop a few pedestrian alleys mid block, a block size park in the middle,... Now there's no straight line for cars and plenty of spaces for pedestrian to develop their own wandering routes through the site.
Look at Groningen- a university city in North Netherlands. Maybe reach out to their architecture school (Hanza and RUG universities) and see if someone will have a conversation with you on zoom to bounce ideas off.
You’re in school and should explore all ideas.