And also Carfree Cities by J.H. Crawford, which advocates a form of linked neighborhoods similar to what is described here. http://www.carfree.com/book/
Thanks for this. I have just drawn what I felt from a traffic congestion avoidance perspective. I should give it a thought from an environmental perspective also and try to re-iterate on the design. Thanks for the feedback.
Addendum: I realized on the way home that this comment was rather too content-free for HN. So...
More specifically, I was curious if the book you mention has some narrative or historical details on why the grand Epcot vision fell apart/was stymied.
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)
Interestingly, "A Pattern Language" directly inspired the GoF book.
It has similar flaws, as well. It should be considered descriptive, not prescriptive--and Christopher Alexander is not nearly as careful around that distinction as the GoF.
tl,dr: designing cities as hierarchical trees, while perhaps efficient in the sense of transportation links, is a bad idea from the standpoint of making a cohesive city.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I live in small city wrapped around an airport (Darwin, Australia). It's not loud because the runway approaches have been kept clear and the airport itself is very large.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Thanks for the resources. Good analogy with software engineering. I would say that deciding the layout and large infrastructure would be analogous to selecting the technology stack. Allowing the buildings and neighborhoods to evolve would be the learn/evolve as you go, agile approach.
And I would add, regarding Alexander, at least, start with his most recent series on The Nature of Order. Then, if you want more, go back and read The Timeless Way of Building, followed by A Pattern Language. But really, his most recent stuff is the most compelling, and the most profound.
I recommend the totally reversed order. First, A Pattern Language - the concrete examples presented there are IMHO the most compelling. Then The Timeless Way of Building since it actually builds upon "A Pattern Language". There are quite a lot of references to particular patterns there, so you minimize forward references this way.
The Nature of Order series generalize even more, so I'd read them after that. They rather independent from the TWoB and APL but I believe the way from the concrete examples (APL) to the generalizations is a better one. Here it's rather a matter of preference than one of forward-dependency.
I would rather see a programmatic simulation of a city growing than someone's deeply flawed "programmed city". An airport in the middle is a massive mistake, for instance. That's the kind of thing an ISO committee would do on the grounds that it creates equal amounts of noise, pollution, and the risk of unfortunate immolation due to a crash for everyone.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases.
You're quite never sure of that. Just yesterday evening I was walking down on a street in my city (East-European capital) whose 19th-century buildings were raised to the ground around 25 years ago. There are still un-developed patches of land on that street, which, needless to say, make it look deserted and desolate even though it's only a 5-minute walk from the Prime-Minister's office building.
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:
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).
54 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadAddendum: I realized on the way home that this comment was rather too content-free for HN. So...
More specifically, I was curious if the book you mention has some narrative or historical details on why the grand Epcot vision fell apart/was stymied.
It has similar flaws, as well. It should be considered descriptive, not prescriptive--and Christopher Alexander is not nearly as careful around that distinction as the GoF.
http://www.patternlanguage.com/archives/alexander1.htm
For some commentary on that piece, see:
http://contraterrene.com/wiki/index.php/Commentary_on_%22A_C...
tl,dr: designing cities as hierarchical trees, while perhaps efficient in the sense of transportation links, is a bad idea from the standpoint of making a cohesive city.
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.
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
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.
[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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida http://architecture.about.com/od/plannedcities/ss/celebratio...
A better configuration would be three spiral shapes, giving the route defined start- and end-points to allow recovery time for delays.
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
http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1568281
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-... [3] http://www.introversion.co.uk/subversion/ [4] http://youtu.be/J30i0gABfS8
[edit]: better link for the Subversion video
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.
The Nature of Order series generalize even more, so I'd read them after that. They rather independent from the TWoB and APL but I believe the way from the concrete examples (APL) to the generalizations is a better one. Here it's rather a matter of preference than one of forward-dependency.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're quite never sure of that. Just yesterday evening I was walking down on a street in my city (East-European capital) whose 19th-century buildings were raised to the ground around 25 years ago. There are still un-developed patches of land on that street, which, needless to say, make it look deserted and desolate even though it's only a 5-minute walk from the Prime-Minister's office building.
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...
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).