Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
Curvilinear gets MORE density because there's no back lane deadspace. They can still sandwich all the houses in on small lots.
|
That's demonstrably false. You can literally count the houses on google maps and see that's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
I'm not sure why curvilinear gets so much hate. It's far superior.
|
It's superior for literally ONE thing and that's moving auto traffic. Which is a self-defeating thing. Curvi is unanimously associated with more car dependence because walking and transit are far better on a grid. More people drive, which means all the collectors bring more traffic to the arterial roads, which means gridlock, expensive infrastructure, and businesses confined to awful stroads that no one really wants to spend time at. It also means more dead space for parking at those destinations. Grids facilitate actual mixed-use neighbourhoods, corner stores and high streets instead of stroads and endless parking lots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaggin
A properly designed curvi can also snake bike paths through with minimal contact with cars. Massively safer. A grid-style can only dedicate bike lanes, but those still create many intersects with cars. Creating danger and stress.
|
Those snake-y bike paths are great for recreation, but very indirect and not great for actually getting anywhere. Ask any commuter cyclist and they'll tell you they'd rather have a protected lane on a direct route, adjacent to businesses etc, than spend an extra 20 minutes winding through some suburban path. Proper protected lanes are plenty safe.