The European cities really remind me of Mike Bostock's visualisation of spanning trees: http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/11377353 which makes sense when you think about it.
The difference between European and Japanese old cities, and American 'new' cities is incredibly obvious. As a European, something like Chicago just doesn't look natural, like it's not a real city. On the other hand, I'm sure our cities look like a chaotic mess to Americans :)
Washington is actually a much better example of an organic-ish area, in terms of street grain. This is pretty ironic, given that the City of Washington (originally just one part of the District of Columbia) was totally planned.
Tokyo is the renaming of Edo, while much younger than Kyoto it can hardly be called a new city when it predates the columbian voyages and gave its name to Japan's 17th-19th century period.
Kyoto is actually an example of "artificial" and inorganic city, it's a replica of Chang'an which stemmed from the highly structured square-based chinese urban planning (although Chang'an wasn't strictly square for astrological and physical reason)
As a european, I can go more than 100km, but I very rarely do go anywhere near that far - our towns are based on the assumption of walking rather than the assumption of driving, so anything more than a 15 minute walk away is "exotic"; on the other hand, the architecture I walk past between my home and the office is just about to celebrate its 1000th birthday :)
Tokyo is still far older than any US cities, and more importantly it grew organically. Kyoto is much older, yes, but it is a stricter grid only because the entire city was built that way in the 8th century. Unlike Tokyo, most European cities, and most American ones, it wasn't a town that grew bigger organically. City architects in those days must have really liked the straight lines.
Edit: Masklinn explained it far more elegantly than I could, listen to them :)
Interesting, I did not know about this. I guess some of it can be chalked up to cultural differences, then. Does this also mean that the Chinese started far earlier than others in doing real urban planning?
What's fascinating is that the colouring pretty much lets you see how the city grew, area by area, at least in cities like London and Boston that grew more organically.
This is the same method we use in studying grain boundary formation in materials science. Atomic lattices align at different angles and are colorized accordingly. It is so cool to see the same idea applied to maps!
25 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 67.9 ms ] thread[1] http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/boston/growth.g...
Kyoto is actually an example of "artificial" and inorganic city, it's a replica of Chang'an which stemmed from the highly structured square-based chinese urban planning (although Chang'an wasn't strictly square for astrological and physical reason)
A: A European thinks that 100km is a pretty big distance. An American thinks that 100 years are a pretty long time.
Edit: Masklinn explained it far more elegantly than I could, listen to them :)
http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/80468941142/unlike-l...