Street Grid vs Higgledy Piggledy

BostonUrbEx

BostonUrbEx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
128
I was wondering how many would be in favor of Boston taking on a long-term (say, 50-100 years) projection of converting Boston's streets primarily to a gridded pattern bit by bit. I expect a bunch of yeses seeing as this is a board that loves density, so also, I was wondering if you support a uniform grid a la Manhattan or a hash of grids which hinge on streets like Columbus Ave.

Quick example:

exampleu.png


Just tossing my personal opinion out, I like my little depiction above as it keep neighborhoods defined and it also allows the streets to contour with the geography better seeing as Boston is not one big rectangle and funnels inwards. But not being an expert by any means I don't know if my "hinged" grids have some sort of serious flaw: ie, are those little triangles too small and is development stunted along Columbus Ave because of the smaller parcels.

Also, I was wondering if there's some sort of "ideal" block dimension? I was thinking 880x352'ish. (1/6 mile by 1/15 mile) I don't know what Manhattan's are but they seem to work well.
 
Hell no! Part of Bostons charm is its crazy cow path roads!. You don't need a grid for density. Plus the strange roads make for much more interesting streetscapes and landmarks. Too much of the country is laid out on a uniform grid already. Why mess with a good thing.

Edit: Also, this would literally be the Manhattanization of Boston.
 
Had a feeling I'd be able to nudge a response like that out. :p

But I mean, really, are areas like this a "good thing":
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&lci=transit&ll=42.35782,-71.054635&spn=0.001304,0.00284&t=h&z=19

Seems a bit excessive on the asphalt.

Perhaps a better topic would be about working out street spacing. Maybe it's my OCD, but I find the deadend, cut-through, and redundant streets annoying. I'm fine with a cowpath, but I think it should go somewhere... and at the same time, not have 10 cowpaths go to the same spot.
 
To be honest, if you zoom out and squint a little bit, that little bit of land is essentially a contorted grid.

I agree with Van, even though I do understand your complaint about asphalt and redundancy. I think more so than actually organizing the streets would be renaming some so that they seem more continuous. Case in point: Northern Ave./Seaport Blvd.
 
How about just reconnecting streets that have been severed over time by mega-developments and urban renewal?
 
Your example looks exactly like SF's grid(s) hinging on Market Street.

I, too, feel that the historic grid should be reconnected.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
But I mean, really, are areas like this a "good thing": [gmap link to aerial of Liberty Square]
Click to expand...

Have you ever personally been there? That area isn't going away, and that's a very, very good thing for Boston.
 
kz1000ps said:
Have you ever personally been there? That area isn't going away, and that's a very, very good thing for Boston.
Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, that looks like it right in your avatar. lol

And I meant the area as a whole that I linked too. I don't have some vendetta on Liberty Square or something.
 
unterbau said:
Personally I'd prefer pedestrian/bikeways as opposed to full on streets.
Click to expand...

I honestly hate when people say this. Lets all go back in time while we are at it! Cars are great, our over dependence on cars is the problem. You really expect a family of 4 to go to the movies in the middle of winter on BIKES?
 
Oh yeah, duh, that nonexistent street was the only way to get to the movie theatre, who knew. These are redundant streets, so what is an extra cross street going to do for our city? Create a new intersection? Another traffic light? I'm not proposing shutting down all the streets in boston....
 
unterbau said:
Also, holy crap, this sentence is just blowing my mind. So elegantly constructed to push so many buttons.
Click to expand...

I should go into politics.

Just to clarify, I love me some bike lanes. But closing the streets off for any one mode of transpiration, permanently, is almost always a bad idea. In fact the only instance I can think of where this works is Quincy Market. DTX will always be in a coma unless you bring back some level of automobile traffic. Pedestrian plazas rarely work and when they do it is because they don't segregate traffic but rather manage the public space better than just giving it all to cars.

Too much planning in America is done by all-or-nothing.

The problem as I see it is that we don't have enough streets. Shutting down a few streets just makes super blocks. The block is the essential element of any city (that is some straight Jane Jacobs right there). Having streets that are designed to serve all uses is what's needed.
 
^^I know you addressed it in another thread but what were your thoughts on the Times Sq experiment?
 
Was just in Vancouver, where the busiest street for pedestrians by far is mostly busy past the point at which it's pedestrianized, i.e., where there are cars plying it. And no, it's not because people are dispersed around the pedestrianized portion of the street; they stick completely to the sidewalks anyway.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Yes. In fact, that looks like it right in your avatar. lol

And I meant the area as a whole that I linked too. I don't have some vendetta on Liberty Square or something.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's it in my avatar...good eye!

And I understand your overall point, but I love the Liberty Square/Custom House district, and I'd have a cow if someone threatened to raze it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top