The Irish one said:Brian thank you for the explanation, very easy to understand. I use a cable modem and it's very fast.
SGB said:Anyone have a graphic showing what this new street grid/loop road hybrid pattern looks like?
Alan said:Is this it?
See this link for more info: http://www.cmhc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/socio/socio75-e.pdf
Tranplanner said:I don't like it - there are no through street connections. Traffic from the subdivision is still being dumped out onto the arterials via a few access streets. Sure it may look prettier than the average post-war development, but it doesn't create a cohesive neighbourhood street pattern. Pedestrian linkages should be provided via public streets, not pathways - just MHO.
Solipsa said:do people automatically assume that just because a park's there, people will use it?
there are sooooooo many dead parks in plano, many of them positioned like in that map: near a concentration of dead ends and barriers.
my mom complained alot about plano's "lack of parks," but it wasn't that. she loved carrollton, but we only had one pond. by comparison, plano has many many more, but they all seem like they were used by the government to turn unused lots into something "useful." by comparison, carrollton's pond saw lots of relative use (there was a church and i want to say school along with some houses, so it was a nice gathering point), and all of plano's (which are generally awkwardly in the midst of residential swaths) see very little.
jresta said:There was a serious lack of offices and more importantly,
residential, on that street.
rwaltermyer said:off topic of the street pattern....but I sometimes think its funny to hear us planners championing residential in downtown...well, my ppl wouldn't live about parts of Chestnut St. if someone paid us to.
rwaltermyer said:off topic of the street pattern....but I sometimes think its funny to hear us planners championing residential in downtown...well,  MOST[/edit] ppl wouldn't live about parts of Chestnut St. if someone paid us to.
One thing that i think is clear is that, without high density to support a steady ped flow, you need a certain amount of (auto)traffic to sustain a certain level of street life - otherwise the place becomes "dead" and people just stop using it all together.
We had that on Chestnut St. in Philly - they made 15 blocks of it Bus & Bike only and business on the street took a nose dive. They brought back the parking and one lane of traffic and ped activity (and business) bumped back up. I think the main reason it didn't work is because, for the most part, Chestnut St. was retail only. There was a serious lack of offices and more importantly, residential, on that street.
Not all grid systems need to abide by Midwestern strictness. Grids can break their continuity to dodge hillsides and valleys. I think the nicest small cities are made up of little neighborhood grids that abut the edge of mountains and end there.Chet said:It may work in Nebraska, but we have glacial kettle-moraine topography associated with the late pliestocene epoch. It just wouldn't fit the landscape.
H said:That is just terrible.
I promote all grid, all the time. With streets and avenues number 1, 2, 3, 4, etc….
This way you know exactly where 715 SW 2nd Street is, instead of hunting dead end cul-de-sacs for 17 Shady Maple Leaf Winding Trail. (WTF).
Also, When you go for a walk or ridet your bike you always know how far you have gone, 10 blocks = 1 mile. And you never get a dead end where you have to turn around.
That’s my rant.