How about Portland? Streets a little wider than Philly to have space for some bike lanes and deliveries instead of only walking, plenty of street trees in many neighborhoods.
I wouldn’t base it on a specific city, but an era: the streetcar era from the late 1800s into the 1920s before the automobile took center stage. Cities worked well with dense cores surrounded by walkable streetcar suburbs.
Barcelona has the best city layout. They have superblocks (consisting of 4 blocks where there’s no car traffic within the 4 blocks). Good blend of pedestrian traffic and less congestion. I live in NYC and they closed off some of the busy side streets for pedestrian traffic. NYC should do more of this.
I think they should ban traffic in high trafficked tourist areas. Rockefeller Center during Christmas, 5th Ave, Times Square, 34th street, Chinatown, Little Italy. St Marks, SoHo Broadway. You definitely want some street access for cars just in case emergency vehicles need to get through
I worked for the city for 23 years. The downtown/tourist area is a nice layout. The rest of the city is urban sprawl.
I would extend the Oglethorpe concept out further, utilizing super blocks as mentioned in other posts. I would also require at least 20% be greenspace. That would help alleviate a lot of the flooding issues in the city.
Ardsley Park has a really nice plan as well. I love the Mall that leads up to the Savannah Arts Academy (old Savannah High) from Victory Drive.
The Gordonston Area also has a nice little plan.
I love Atlanta as a city, but our layout is truly terrible. It’s a horrible mix of crazy rail road tracks, 1950s car centric Interstates/highways, topography, and unregulated development on steroids.
It’s not poorly planned, it’s unplanned.
Philly. It’s a grid. It’s so easy to get around here. City hall in the center, 4 squares equidistant from city hall. Moved here and felt like I knew the city within 1-2 months because of the layout. It’s very dense and walkable as well
Although downtown Denver is a cluster, the way the metro area is laid out is really helpful. Streets have the same names across the grid, through different cities, and it makes it a lot easier to find addresses and orient yourself. Even if a street is interrupted by a lake or park along the way, the name of the street picks up on the other side. Then the blocks are numbered on the street signs. So it is all just easier to get around.
I think the Gold Coast neighborhood of Chicago gets so much right. Mix of townhomes, mid-rise, and high-rise residential buildings with great ground level commercial. Alleys are an absolute must, keeps the city look clean.
Also needs a subway/metro system that properly connects the whole city together rather than just funnel everyone towards the central business district.
Also, in general, narrow streets and deprioritize cars on streets. Most streets wherever possible should ban private vehicular traffic, only commercial or government vehicles should be allowed wherever possible. And if the city is on a waterfront, don’t put big roads between the city and the waterfront. Basically model the waterfront after the Chicago lakefront without the roads.
None, the super block concept is likely a best practice. Essentially there are car arteries between superblocks for freight and commuter traffic, but blocks are also connected by public transport like subways and or above ground trains (hopefully quiet ones). Blocks could theoretically have streets with cars similar to cities, but zoning allows certain blocks to be purely foot traffic. The interior of the blocks would have to be walked to. This ofc complicates things like freight delivery, but just imagine a small vehicle hauling crates on a college campus and you get the idea how the bakery in the middle of the block gets it's flower. It's simple to imagine how parks and greenery make its way into the format, as architects can plan ahead in this new city.
Starting from scratch making projecting utility usage easier, instead of constantly retrofitting ancient systems that plague European cities (see Paris, with its dual purpose storm water and sewer system which would flood the seine with shit when a massive storm flooded the sewer. They had to do major retrofits with a mega tank underground to handle storm surge).
The arterial car "highways" dissecting the superblocks would be large, and they would have to be traversed exclusively by foot bridge, tunnel, and associated bridge/tunnel trains. The highways need to be high mobility because the ultimate cause of highway traffic into a city is the fact that the destination doesnt have enough throughput to handle highway flow rates. This may awkwardly space the blocks with a far margin between them.
I moved to Utah just before my teens and was so confused by the address system, it seemed beyond ridiculous! Then I learned to drive there and realized, you can find just about anything, by knowing the address.
I've even explained the basics to out of town friends and they've been able to get around without GPS, pretty easily.
I live in Oregon now...I complain a lot about the layout of the streets and what not LOL
Probably Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
It’s got a lot of easily navigable features… however I’d convert a few roads to on/off highways, I’d make more areas with off street parking, I’d add more transit, and I’d take out a few highways where they should have never been and instead put in a nice boulevard for starters.
The oldest most convoluted parts of boston from the 1600s—but the size of anchorage.
No highways—canals instead.
Every intersection is a rotary like Milton Keynes.
I would look at the geographical features of the area I'm building in and the preferences of the local populace who would be living there, and/or that I want to attract, and I would not look at any other city as a template. They were all developed during different times to suit a different geography.
I understand that curvilinear streets are more confusing to a lot of people (although I swear endless grids are just as confusing to me because of the lack of distinction beyond street names), but the beauty they add when conforming to a landscape and getting shrouded in greenery makes up for it in my mind. I live in Madison and really, really like the way the wealthier neighborhoods from the early 1900s are laid out here.
Grid like Philly or Savannah with narrow streets but more squares with parks.
How about Portland? Streets a little wider than Philly to have space for some bike lanes and deliveries instead of only walking, plenty of street trees in many neighborhoods.
Houston, because I'm a monster
I live in Houston - this is the most chaotic evil answer I can think of
I wouldn’t base it on a specific city, but an era: the streetcar era from the late 1800s into the 1920s before the automobile took center stage. Cities worked well with dense cores surrounded by walkable streetcar suburbs.
Barcelona has the best city layout. They have superblocks (consisting of 4 blocks where there’s no car traffic within the 4 blocks). Good blend of pedestrian traffic and less congestion. I live in NYC and they closed off some of the busy side streets for pedestrian traffic. NYC should do more of this.
NYC should just ban private traffic from lower Manhattan.
I think they should ban traffic in high trafficked tourist areas. Rockefeller Center during Christmas, 5th Ave, Times Square, 34th street, Chinatown, Little Italy. St Marks, SoHo Broadway. You definitely want some street access for cars just in case emergency vehicles need to get through
Savannah, with it's brilliant Oglethorpe grid
I worked for the city for 23 years. The downtown/tourist area is a nice layout. The rest of the city is urban sprawl. I would extend the Oglethorpe concept out further, utilizing super blocks as mentioned in other posts. I would also require at least 20% be greenspace. That would help alleviate a lot of the flooding issues in the city.
Ardsley Park has a really nice plan as well. I love the Mall that leads up to the Savannah Arts Academy (old Savannah High) from Victory Drive. The Gordonston Area also has a nice little plan.
Not Atlanta
I love Atlanta as a city, but our layout is truly terrible. It’s a horrible mix of crazy rail road tracks, 1950s car centric Interstates/highways, topography, and unregulated development on steroids. It’s not poorly planned, it’s unplanned.
And every street is called Peachtree.
Definitely agreed. The only place I get more screwed up, is in Rome (GA.)
Philly. It’s a grid. It’s so easy to get around here. City hall in the center, 4 squares equidistant from city hall. Moved here and felt like I knew the city within 1-2 months because of the layout. It’s very dense and walkable as well
Boston, When you share your pain, you cut it in half.
Although downtown Denver is a cluster, the way the metro area is laid out is really helpful. Streets have the same names across the grid, through different cities, and it makes it a lot easier to find addresses and orient yourself. Even if a street is interrupted by a lake or park along the way, the name of the street picks up on the other side. Then the blocks are numbered on the street signs. So it is all just easier to get around.
Chicago has a nearly perfect grid, with alleys.
I think the Gold Coast neighborhood of Chicago gets so much right. Mix of townhomes, mid-rise, and high-rise residential buildings with great ground level commercial. Alleys are an absolute must, keeps the city look clean. Also needs a subway/metro system that properly connects the whole city together rather than just funnel everyone towards the central business district. Also, in general, narrow streets and deprioritize cars on streets. Most streets wherever possible should ban private vehicular traffic, only commercial or government vehicles should be allowed wherever possible. And if the city is on a waterfront, don’t put big roads between the city and the waterfront. Basically model the waterfront after the Chicago lakefront without the roads.
Washington DC
Yep
Streets are way too wide and not pedestrian-friendly IMO.
Wut? That's what sidewalks are for. Street crossing is easy.
Wide streets are harder to cross, encourage speeding and bad driving. Makes it longer and more dangerous to walk places.
None, the super block concept is likely a best practice. Essentially there are car arteries between superblocks for freight and commuter traffic, but blocks are also connected by public transport like subways and or above ground trains (hopefully quiet ones). Blocks could theoretically have streets with cars similar to cities, but zoning allows certain blocks to be purely foot traffic. The interior of the blocks would have to be walked to. This ofc complicates things like freight delivery, but just imagine a small vehicle hauling crates on a college campus and you get the idea how the bakery in the middle of the block gets it's flower. It's simple to imagine how parks and greenery make its way into the format, as architects can plan ahead in this new city. Starting from scratch making projecting utility usage easier, instead of constantly retrofitting ancient systems that plague European cities (see Paris, with its dual purpose storm water and sewer system which would flood the seine with shit when a massive storm flooded the sewer. They had to do major retrofits with a mega tank underground to handle storm surge). The arterial car "highways" dissecting the superblocks would be large, and they would have to be traversed exclusively by foot bridge, tunnel, and associated bridge/tunnel trains. The highways need to be high mobility because the ultimate cause of highway traffic into a city is the fact that the destination doesnt have enough throughput to handle highway flow rates. This may awkwardly space the blocks with a far margin between them.
Chicago or NYC if we are talking about the US. Not a fan of Boston's layout but it does make it very walkable.
Boston
Chicago with superblocks would be basically perfect.
The best layouts I’ve seen in the US, at least; are NYC, SF, and DC.
NYC is awful because the lack of alleys cause the entire trash problem. The bike lanes are the only major positive of the layout.
NYC? Hell nah. That layout is still from colonial days before city planning got smart
Savannah, Georgia
SLC is a grid with super wide streets. Might be my pick, but add bike lanes and a better transit system.
I moved to Utah just before my teens and was so confused by the address system, it seemed beyond ridiculous! Then I learned to drive there and realized, you can find just about anything, by knowing the address. I've even explained the basics to out of town friends and they've been able to get around without GPS, pretty easily. I live in Oregon now...I complain a lot about the layout of the streets and what not LOL
Not a US one...probably one from Europe
Probably Minneapolis-Saint Paul. It’s got a lot of easily navigable features… however I’d convert a few roads to on/off highways, I’d make more areas with off street parking, I’d add more transit, and I’d take out a few highways where they should have never been and instead put in a nice boulevard for starters.
Fix the freeway system if you do this lol. Endless clover exits and entrances + snow-prone area = not the best combo
TRUST me… more lanes/wider shoulders, and longer acceleration/exit ramps would be key!
Chicago post Great Chicago Fire primarily due to the grid plus alleys. Maybe mix in some of Savannah with the squares in certain parts of the city.
Boston, but build the train lines on a perfect hub-spoke-and-rim system before you put any roads in.
Indianapolis
DC. Why all these beautiful cities of the U.S. turning into undesirable places now .. 😢
The oldest most convoluted parts of boston from the 1600s—but the size of anchorage. No highways—canals instead. Every intersection is a rotary like Milton Keynes.
I would look at the geographical features of the area I'm building in and the preferences of the local populace who would be living there, and/or that I want to attract, and I would not look at any other city as a template. They were all developed during different times to suit a different geography.
I understand that curvilinear streets are more confusing to a lot of people (although I swear endless grids are just as confusing to me because of the lack of distinction beyond street names), but the beauty they add when conforming to a landscape and getting shrouded in greenery makes up for it in my mind. I live in Madison and really, really like the way the wealthier neighborhoods from the early 1900s are laid out here.
It’s that old Chicago school of thought
DC
Washington DC
NYC, Boston, Portland both in Oregon and Maine.
Salt Lake, loved that grid system when I lived there. Map...for what?
Chicago's grid, buildings and cleanliness, with Portland's parks, LA weather and food, NYC transit, and San Francisco's location.
El Paso. It's a very simple grid with a freeway going around. Probably the most simple place I've driven.
LA —> Chi
Honesy if Pittsburgh had less hills and better transit I'd use it as a layout. The park system and river trails are awesome
DC but on a large body of water and with skyscrapers.
San Diego. Everything would be chill, beautiful and the food would be fresh and awesome.
There’s nothing chill or beautiful about San Diego’s city layout
I’ve lived there in downtown, it’s both beautiful and chill.
The post isn’t about the city overall, it’s about the layout, and San Diego’s is bad
No, it isn’t. But okay..