> > I'm originally from around there. I like Boston, but there is > absolutely no way to actually give directions. The street system is > based on 17th century cow paths. > > I like the chowder and donuts, however. >
it's the only way to lay out a city properly. It means the human element is retained. Most old towns and cities around the world were laid out that way, or some similar way. If you look at the places that have big, straight, wide streets and grid plans they tend to be places where an invader or tyrant has bulldozed the old town so that he could have somewhere for military parades where the rebellious locals wouldn't be able to throw up barricades quickly. The Anglo-Saxons when they came to England built their new towns on a grid plan, and they seem to be the main exception to my little rule of thumb, having applied the same principle in the new worlds they discovered in later centuries. Similar rules apply to roads. Where they have developed of their own accord they have followed old drove roads, with few difficult hills that cattle and people can't easily get up, sticking to contour lines, and nowadays making for pleasant cycling. Invaders on the other hand tended to build straight roads, obliterating local ones and dominating the landscapes. Roman roads, autobahns, motorways. If civilisation collapses and we lose motorised transport, the motorways will fall into disuse because they go straight up and down hills, and people and animal-drawn transport won't be able to use them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
