Forester says...
On 2/8/2011 5:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 8, 1:58 pm, wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.
There is also the difference between a pre-motoring grid (or pre-
industrial irregular mesh) layout, and a post-WWII dendritic layout
where alternate routes have been eradicated by design. That is less a
function of density and more a function of age. It makes a huge
difference in the relationship between motor and non-motor traffic, as
you know but as some others are slow to acknowledge.
I think the grid vs. dendritic layout may be more important (and I
like the word dendritic to describe that). For one thing, this metro
area is, rather famously, losing population. The density is way down,
particularly in the older areas, but the cycling is great because of
the grid layout. In that context, reduced density actually helps.
As it happens, I live right on the border between grid and dendritic.
Fortunately, I don't have to deal with much of the latter before I'm
out of town, at least in two directions.
BTW, in addition to "grid" and "dendritic" I'd like another word for
describing Pittsburgh. Something that conveys a dense, intensely
confusing tangle of streets with few right angles and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.
Sounds like Boston except not so many steep hills.
|