
City Layout Design: A programmer's perspective - nikhilalmeida
http://thedissectionroom.com/ideal-city-design-by-transportation-layout
======
shalmanese
The fundamental premise that this is starting out with is flawed which is that
cities can be successfully designed upfront. This is what we painfully learned
with our grand experiment with the modernist architecture movement.

The argument is roughly the same as the one against waterfall development in
software engineering which is that it's impossible to know until actual
implementation & use what is successful or not.

Instead, successful cities are evolved and mixed use, with a mix of new and
old buildings, strong social fabric and buildings built to be adaptable to
changing needs.

See: How Buildings Learn, The Death and Life of Great American Cities and A
Pattern Language for more context on this.

~~~
ajuc
Didn't suburbia evolved organicaly from regular cities? Should we just accept
it, because it's organical growth, so it's optimal?

There's place for organical growth, and there's place for upfront design, both
in programming and in urban development.

The best cities layout I've seen was consequences of organical deveopment
within some rules - see most old european cities. Building rules specified how
broad should streets be, how high the building can be in each region, which
functions can't be performed in which part of the city, which way should new
streets be built. There were reasons for these rules.

In my country after 50 years of communism (and hideus commie blocks, etc) we
went throught 10 years of "free for all" development of cities.

Believe me - I hate totalitarism, but in these first 10 years of freedom
cities got much worse - wallmarts in the city center, ugly cheap postmodern
buildings near 500 year beutiful houses, commercials hiding half of the city
besides them. Now, since +- 10 years there is some regulations coming back,
and I'm happy with that.

~~~
bane
It's interesting that you bring up European cities. I was about to type a post
offering the counter example, New York (specifically Manhattan) and to some
extent Chicago. Both are products of a strong "framework" of transit and
utilities, but the growth within this framework has been more or less
organic...all buildings don't have to be the same height a la Paris.

I've felt that organically grown cities, of which most major European cities
are good examples, are very sub-optimal for because of the haphazard and
random way the cities are laid out. It many such cities, the old, medieval
core became so bogged down that cars aren't even allowed and it's basically a
pedestrian heaven.

Navigation is hard in these cities, traffic is usually a mess without modern
development to route around the "organicness" of the city centers, as a result
certain types of goods and services...namely anything to do with lots of
manufacturing or bulk goods, ends up moving away from the city core. And while
it means that the cores tends to become very pedestrian friendly, they really
just sort of end up as extended outdoor shopping malls with some housing for
the shop workers above.

It's interesting in some of the older Asian cities which have very old
histories, say Seoul, the the haphazard, medieval-style organic planning has
given way to a large effort to put the major thoroughfares on a grid and as
old areas are redeveloped, to do so with a heavily planned development policy
in mind. The city was simply not able to handle the growth and population
demands the organic system created.

There's a reason Paris' business center is not in Paris' geographic center,
and central London has restricted driving zones, and most of Barcelona's
population enjoys the 19th century planned developed residential areas, while
the older parts are being turned into tourist hotels, malls, restaurants and
more shopping areas.

~~~
ajuc
Well, for me most of the disadventages you listed are adventages :)

Pedestrian streets in the center, industry forced out of the city, services
concentrating in the center, cars not viable for in-city transport, well
developed public transport.

Also, I don't think medieval and older cities were not planed. They were just
designed without cars and milions of people in mind. With cars I think it's
actualy good - cars and cities don't mix well.

BTW: I know whole city designed by one architect as "ideal town" in 1580, and
built according to these plans. It's quite nice to live -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamo%C5%9B%C4%87>

~~~
bane
Yeah, it totally depends on perspective. I actually love my time as a
pedestrian tourist in European cities, hate them with a passion as a driver or
when trying to do business.

It's interesting how many old cities were started as a heavily planned Roman
garrison towns, straight boulevards, right angles everywhere, etc. Then those
cores turned into the medieval rats nests we're familiar with today, then
usually outside of that there was a building boom in the 19th century and a
return to some kind of order.

But the advantage of the unplanned medieval layout is that the streets are
usually an attempt at a shortest path between two interesting points.

------
dpkendal
Orbital routes (such as the proposed circular roads) don't work well in
practice because slight delays tend to propagate easily and quickly all the
way around the circle, with no recovery time at either end of the route
(because there is no end). This is why the Circle line of the London
Underground was changed a few years ago into a spiral shape, and why the M25
motorway gets congested so easily.

A better configuration would be three spiral shapes, giving the route defined
start- and end-points to allow recovery time for delays.

------
aphyr
I don't understand why the author chose to kink the subways to preserve the
same orientation in each satellite. Those corners are going to slow down
trains and impose more wear, which means more failures. It also adds a huge
amount of track (and associated road crossings, safety infrastructure,
maintenance personnel, etc.) and trip time. This plan already abandons the
rectilinear grid system in favor of circular roads; I don't see a reason to
preserve the rail system's north-south axis in every city.

[edit] I should mention that overall, I quite like the design. It looks to me
like you've arranged the space at a livable scale and with careful attention
to the work/live/play cycle of its inhabitants.

~~~
nikhilalmeida
the major reason was to keep the city structure simple and repeatable, so as
to reduce learning. This is one of the issues I found when my parents (even
friends) visited NYC, the subway maps were too intimidating.

~~~
aphyr
But simultaneously, the subcities are _not_ repeatable in that the
relationship between the intercity roads and the local infrastructure will be
kinked; you need to adapt the circular intercity infrastructure (both the
subway and local roads) to the rectilinear grid in three different ways over
six satellite cities. That kind of variance may be desirable, but it will make
it more difficult to memorize the layout and could introduce awkward kinks.
Sometimes the circular perimeter roads will contact the principal city axis;
in other cities they won't.

------
ajuc
I like Oskar Hansen idea - it's called Continuous Linear Form, and it says
problems of cities arise from radial growth - city starts in the center and
grows outwards in every direction.

So transport routes, parkings have to go throught the city, dividing it, using
up space, making everybody go further and further to do anything, and
isolating people in the center of the city from the nature.

So he imagined cities that are like lanes - growing from the center in only 2
directions. Everybody will have nature near, between such urbanised lanes will
be villages, roads, etc - so transport will go throught wilderness, making it
cheaper, and safer. These lanes should be continious, and areas of different
functions should be placed repeatedly, in small distances, so nobody will have
to go too far from home to servicing areas.

Of course - it's a little utopian idea, but still, I like it.

Some more info about Oskar Hansen, and his architecture:

<http://tnn.pl/Oskar_Hansen,2969.html>

One of the districts he designed (he had to make compromises, so it's not
really LCF, but still, it's nice district for its time).
[http://tnn.pl/uploaded/zdjecia/200806191346500.hansen_041.jp...](http://tnn.pl/uploaded/zdjecia/200806191346500.hansen_041.jpg)

~~~
bane
Reminds me of driving on 19 in the New Port Richey/Bayonet Point area in
Florida. The only place I know where you can drive for 40 or 50 miles on one
road and see continuous strip malls the entire time.

Every 4 or 5 miles the scene will basically repeat. The same set of stores, in
virtually the same order, arranged in their various strip malls in virtually
the same way. It felt like you were driving in a Zoetrope.

Go a mile or two off that and you're in the Gulf of Mexico or in a swamp if
you go the other way.

It was an interesting city plan, but it _felt_ miserable to me (other than the
close proximity of nature).

------
lojack
This bears a striking resemblance to Canberra.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inner-canberra_01MJC.png>

It would also be worth checking out New Urbanism, which has very similar goals
for the designs of cities.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism>

------
AceJohnny2
Somewhat relevant, a guy designed the ultimate city, Magnasanti, in Simcity 4.
Here's his video [1] and an interview [2]. Choice quote from the interview:

 _Vice: I think most people’s natural inclination after watching your video
would be awe, followed by fear._

 _Vincent: I am in agreement. That was part of the intent of the video, for
those that know, play, and love the game._

Introversion, an indie game company in the UK who created hacker favorites
like Uplink has unfortunately shelved their game project played in a fully
procedurally generated city, from the major neighbourhoods down to the
individual floors of the buildings. You could get a demo of the city generator
from the recent Humble Bundle. There are still some fascinating videos to find
on their blog [3] or on youtube [4]

[1] <http://youtu.be/NTJQTc-TqpU> [2] [http://www.vice.com/read/the-
totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-...](http://www.vice.com/read/the-totalitarian-
buddhist-who-beat-sim-city) [3] <http://www.introversion.co.uk/subversion/>
[4] <http://youtu.be/J30i0gABfS8>

[edit]: better link for the Subversion video

~~~
ekianjo
Cool that you mentioned Subversion. It looked great but it was a way too
ambitious project for the limited resources of Introversion's team. And there
was somehow a lack of consistency between the heist concept and the need to
have this huge procedural city out there. But they had a bunch of great ideas
altogether - maybe worth several games, not only one.

------
WildUtah
"Let's Kick Around Carfree.com" by New World Economics contains worthwhile
criticisms of this design idea.

<http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/111509.html>

Another worthwhile article is "Let's Take a Trip to Suburban Hell."

<http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/030710.html>

~~~
anthonyb
That site is full of vitriol and hyperbole: "I know this is difficult,
especially for retards, so you may want to consult your local Professor of
Urban Studies before proceeding."

And he blasts carfree's "green space", but then lists a whole bunch of things
which the green space could be (yards, parks, sports fields). I can't help but
feel that he's deliberately missing the point.

There's also a fairly detailed discussion on carfree.com as far as "how to get
there from here": <http://carfree.com/conv_lyon.html> so it's hardly billed as
a 'build it from scratch' ethos either.

------
yason
Satellites emerge in big cities too, they're called neighbourhoods. The extent
of how far people are willing to walk in their daily lives will scope the size
of a neighbourhood and that also pressures people to concentrate their daily
activities within the same neighbourhood.

Public transit will lift the limit somewhat: people are willing to spend only
so much time commuting or going to/from hobbies but with good public transit
people will frequent other neighbourhoods on a regular basis. Public transit
will be cheap as long as densities are high enough and that's why big cities
are dense and have public transit. Large car-based "cities" aren't actually
cities, they're just glorified urban office parks with people living in the
suburbs: public transit will never work there efficiently.

The reason why you can't design a city is that a meaningful city can only grow
organically based on whatever people happen to make of it. Commerce will
surface when the place and time are right. Predesigning a neighbourhood will
result in either a lot of dead space or a preformed area that nobody will
consider their own.

~~~
nikhilalmeida
The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to
build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for
planned ones. More than half the cities population will live in the satellite
areas, there by making it cheap and efficient to run subway lines 24x7. Also I
believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space
increases.

~~~
yason
_The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to
build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for
planned ones._

This is false, though. The method of growing doesn't affect the feasibility of
public transport: the density of the areas in question does.

And no matter how the areas grew, an economically growing public transport
network will naturally connect the most dense parts of a city together. That
is, provided there are dense areas. Think London's 100+ year history of the
Underground where underground railway companies, as soon as funding was
secured, built little stretches that made the most economic sense.

 _Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for
space increases._

It doesn't if the environment doesn't lend itself to grow, change, and adapt
as needed which is a big problem with designed areas. An area also needs both
old and new lots and buildings to offer space for businesses that wouldn't
survive with market rents. This is something nobody can design.

------
pilom
Its interesting seeing some of the similarities between the OP and Washington
DC. There aren't the mini cities the same way (maybe Reston or Arlington would
qualify) but the Beltway is the major highway for cars that circles the city
with designated bus lanes on most of the in/out spokes. Large subway/lightrail
network with MASSIVE parking structures at the perimeter to encourage public
transportation. Fairly walkable downtown areas (especially the national mall
area). And yet even despite these advances driving in DC is a terrible
experience.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Agreed, another problem with DC is the self imposed limit on population
density in the inner circle. Buildings in DC must be less than 3/4 high as the
the street is wide, or something like that? I don't know the exact rule. Then
look across the river at Arlington, and how they smartly designed for urban
growth, and you've got some taller buildings, mixed in with vibrant
neighborhoods, and single family homes just a few blocks away form the
skyscrapers. It really is a kinda nice.

~~~
bane
Buildings can't be taller than the Washington Monument or 555 feet.

~~~
pchristensen
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Washington,_D.C.#B...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Washington,_D.C.#Building_heights)

To preserve the grandeur of the National Mall, the White House, the Capitol,
and various other key locations, the entire city is subject to strict building
height limits. This limitation was placed in effect just prior to the 20th
century when government officials realized that structural steel "skyscrapers"
could overwhelm the city. In 1899, Congress enacted a height limit for the
District prohibiting private buildings from rising more than 130 feet.
Contrary to popular belief, no law has ever restricted buildings to the height
of the United States Capitol or Washington Monument.[20][21] A revised height
law in 1910 did away with that fixed maximum. The newer legislation, still in
effect today, states that no new building may be more than 20 feet taller than
the width of the street in front of it.[22] The current law is codified as
D.C. CODE ANN. § 6-601.05. Thus, Washington has a relatively modest skyline in
comparison to the majority of American cities. However the District is ringed
by high-rise buildings in many nearby suburbs like Arlington, Silver Spring,
and Bethesda.

~~~
bane
I stand corrected. Growing up in D.C. that was the urban myth. Better to just
refer to the actual laws instead!

------
rmah
Read "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander.
[http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-
Constructio...](http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Construction-
Environmental/dp/0195019199)

~~~
kylemathews
And "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition
Have Failed" - [http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Institution-
Universi...](http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Institution-
University/dp/0300078153)

~~~
paganel
Great book! That's actually the book that got me interested in the recent
history of my city, which suffered major changes (most say for the worst) that
seem to have been taken up from the book's chapters on mdoernist urban
development. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceau%C5%9Fima>)

------
fendrak
When I read

    
    
      I have structured my city into smaller circular satellite cities (C1 to C6) which in turn are placed within a circle *with the airport at the center.*
    

I found myself wondering how happy the inhabitants would be about constant
overhead air traffic, not to mention the crash risk for the immediately
surrounding buildings.

~~~
nikhilalmeida
The center radius can be quite large say 8 miles. I currently live 3 miles
from LAX and never hear a plane. But yes another idea would be to have most of
the warehouses towards the center, which will make distribution easier.

------
replax
Surprisingly, I found it rather similar to Tokyo actually.

Tokyo, too, has multiple sub centres which are mostly self-sufficient. They
are connected by a train running around in a circle and have central hubs
where trains depart into the suburbs. Stations are largely accommodated with
large bicycle parking lots to facilitate train usage. However, even though
Tokyo is one magnitude bigger than NYC, the transportation fees are fairly
high, too. Also, the Japanese solved the parking space problem, by making it a
requirement to have a parking space in order to be able to buy a car.

~~~
ekianjo
Tokyo's fees are not so expensive for public transportation if you have ever
been to other cities in Japan. In fact, it is probably the city where you
travel a very long distance with a reasonnable fee, something like 1.5 dollar
or so. In other Japan cities for the same distance, the fee can double or
triple, so Tokyo is rather cheap in that aspect.

The parking space problem is only solved because everyone is using the train
to go to work everyday, mostly. If this were to change, they would face major
parking space issues, as the innards of the city are not designed to park a
great amount of car. The parking space you mentioned is usually the one you
reserve in your building when you get a car, but that does not mean there is
space available at your destination.

It is quite inefficient to travel in Tokyo altogether. While not too
expensive, it takes a lot of time and in the train you cannot seat most of the
time because it is overcrowded. I would not pick Tokyo as an example of a city
where things work well - it just works, but it's already over-capacity.

------
SimHacker
Check out some of the circular city patterns around Amersfoort, Netherlands --
and of course Amersfoort itself is circular but older and more organic:
[http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Nethe...](http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Netherlands&hl=en&ll=52.196165,5.379782&spn=0.023885,0.0315&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.057085,64.511719&geocode=Fc_WGwMdMzZSAA&hnear=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Netherlands&t=h&z=15)

------
ghurlman
Was anyone else reminded of the early conceptual drawings and plans for EPCOT
Center?

~~~
larrydag
Walt Disney had a vision for the city/habitat of the future. Is there any
website or archive that shows all of those visions and plans? It would be an
interesting read since he was such a visionary.

~~~
dredmorbius
He built it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida>
[http://architecture.about.com/od/plannedcities/ss/celebratio...](http://architecture.about.com/od/plannedcities/ss/celebration.htm)

------
malkia
LA is spread-out and almost flat, due to the earthquake active zone.

~~~
trafficlight
I think LA's automobile and subsequent parking lot history has a lot more to
do with it's incredibly low density than potential earthquake damage.

<http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1568281>

------
graywh
This reminds me of <http://carfree.com/>

------
ajaymamtura
wont the city center become a bottle neck?

