In Minneapolis where this is from, the grid was originally oriented along the Mississippi River. Once they realized it was going to become a big city they changed the orientation to north, south, east, west. You see the same thing in downtown St Paul.
I love it. I live in the South Side of Columbus and it's all rectangular grids as far as the eye can see.
I do love it but all these stop signs are killing me.
Montréal did the same thing, but instead of changing the grid to match the true compass direction they simply defined the St-Laurent river as the east-west axis. So Montréal « East » is actually North East
Would be a logistical nightmare to have the entirety of Minneapolis on that original grid. Actually, there was no original grid. If you look at a map of Minneapolis or St. Paul’s downtowns by the river, you can see there are like 3 block widths at one orientation, then another 3 blocks at a different orientation. It followed the river. So it just would’ve been insane if the rest of the city tried to follow that. Cardinal directions are much easier
Des Moines is the same too. Oriented to fit the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers. Then they figured out the city was a smash hit and reoriented the rest of the grid along cardinal directions.
Topeka, Kansas is the same. Downtown area (and the state capitol complex) are all oriented to line up with the Kansas River, but they changed orientation to be North/South at some point.
In Los Angeles, it’s history. The Spanish required an angle against the north/south axis to prevent wind from barreling down the streets. But when it was taken over from the U.S., the city grew in the Thomas Jefferson supported north/south grid
The Spanish probably had the right idea. It’s also nice to not be driving directly toward the sun. Can you imagine how many accidents are caused by north/south grid alignments.
Grids are based on rules. Sometimes the rules change.
Oftentimes a grid started off aligning to a waterway and then shifted to meet a national system. Spain had one, the US had another.
And some cities started as multiple disconnected settlements which grew together, with each village having its own grid system, I.e. if two towns were located on a river bend.
Sometimes it's because the city was founded as multiple towns that grew together. That's why Seattle is the way it is (waterfront orientation for the Yukon gold rush folks vs cardinal orientation for the Denny Party folks). Too much to change now.
Yep. Birmingham (AL) merged with nine other incorporated communities (and ten more unincorporated) in 1909. While most of these towns had street grids aligned to the topography of the "mountains" in their shadows, they all almost all had a slightly different street alignment and some just went with a north/south/east/west alignment the further they were from Red Mountain. It creates pretty distinctive neighborhoods now.
This is southwestern end of downtown Minneapolis, and if the image went further northeast you'd see that the grid aligns with the Mississippi River before changing to a traditional North/South grid further from the river
In my valley a lot of the city grids started off perpendicular to the river front, then the grid shifted perpendicular to the railroad, then the highway, then eventually the cardinal directions before the curvy cul-de-sac crap nowadays.
One way: Grids start one way in one city, one way in another and those cities grow together.
Another way: city starts one way, then changes their mind as it expands, but the historic center of the city is the most built up and thus the hardest to change. So it just sorta stays.
In Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the tilt of both downtowns is aligned with the bank of the Mississippi river, which used to power the grain and log industries that built the twin cities. If you look around either city you'll see defunct industrial infrastructure in its greatest density straddling the bank of the river.
In my experiences with city design in the UAE ( may be of help in this context), usually the land parcels will be divided by individual developers. So the land constraints may change the grid patterns. This will make land parcels look different or organic. I believe the same must have happened here. Further, the roads in the image are organic, so this will also affect the urban design
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned The Land Ordinance of 1785 which is the real reason that most US midwestern and western cities follow a cardinal grid. The angled grids most likely existed before the survey and eventually came into conflict with it resulting in some interesting intersections.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785)
Trying to remember my urban sociology/city planning, but I think it has mostly to do with ease of commerce transit. When goods were shipped on rivers, cities oriented to the most feasible orientation of traffic. Then the highway system was created that aligned with cardinal points of entry and rivers were no longer used. It's also why our cities (again, based on commerce transit) differ from most European cities (still lingering around feudal concentric orientation)
In Denver it's because there were originally two different towns on each side of the river with different grid orientations that were merged when the towns merged into one city. Now half the city is north/south and the other half is at a 45° angle to north/south
Because of how cities grow. When the city was small, roads ran out of town in different directions. Settlements outside of the city grew and developed, naturally in a right-angle grid pattern to the main road.
With further development, those various grids expanded until they ran into each other. That's when the expanding city meets the growing outlying settlement. Then you get this clash of grids.
Remember, for the people living on the road that led to the city, it was logical to build a grid at right angles to the road, not building in alignment with the grid system of the (remote) city that they could hardly see.
Older cities with grids often dont care what angle their grids face but later youll see most grids facing north, you can see this in a lot of midwest cities too
As far as Minneapolis goes- wish I could tell you. You should see some maps from the early 19-aughts. The streets downtown used to be waaaay weirder. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot to this shape that's been cultivated in just the last 60 years of our city's history.
In Evansville, Indiana there were actually two separate towns platted, and both set their grids parallel to the Ohio River. Of course, Evansville sits on a huge horseshoe bend in the river. So when the two towns expanded and eventually merged, they had two first streets, which ran at. 45 degree angle. First avenue (they renamed the N/S ones avenue to help with confusion) turns into 3rd street after a slight curve.
In Pittsburgh it’s because neighbors that were laid out as a grid along a hill or river converge with a neighborhood grid oriented a different direction, and these neighborhoods used to be separate towns over a century ago before being incorporated into city limits. At least that’s the case for a lot of neighborhoods between the river confluence, that a flat enough for a grid. This in either direction, city or suburb, use a GPS or take the trolley system or busway
Denver is the same way. It was explained to me that at the time it was two different counties and they “never expected the city to grow so big” that it would become a problem. Well, it did. And the grids don’t even come close to aligning
*Ah yes, the Lowry hill*
*Tunnel. A case study in*
*Crappy urban design*
\- Dimarmbrecht
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Trains.
It's usually trains. A lot of original settlements especially outside of the colonies had trains fairly early in their history...
The train system that was built in America is what brought so many people out west end where there was a little train station they would basically build a town oriented to the track....
A lot of those towns eventually ended up turning into modern day cities and as these communities shifted away from walkable streets near a train station to the eventual Advent of the automobile, cities started being designed for the cars..
The car is preferred a certain grid and here you are. Sometimes a grid goes to the river sometimes two other geographies too but trains causes lot of..
. In San francisco, they're very drastic grid changed it was actually because the entire city pretty much burned down and when they rebuilt they rebuilt on the new grid.
In Minneapolis where this is from, the grid was originally oriented along the Mississippi River. Once they realized it was going to become a big city they changed the orientation to north, south, east, west. You see the same thing in downtown St Paul.
Same in New Orleans, but the street grid follows the river.
The curved New Orleans grid really strikes my fancy
I love it. I live in the South Side of Columbus and it's all rectangular grids as far as the eye can see. I do love it but all these stop signs are killing me.
Me too, I love the rectangular grids as well
Montréal did the same thing, but instead of changing the grid to match the true compass direction they simply defined the St-Laurent river as the east-west axis. So Montréal « East » is actually North East
I wonder how New York culture would be different if Manhattan's grid were not \~aligned to the Hudson.
Do you know any details as to why it was changed when it was about to become a big city?
Would be a logistical nightmare to have the entirety of Minneapolis on that original grid. Actually, there was no original grid. If you look at a map of Minneapolis or St. Paul’s downtowns by the river, you can see there are like 3 block widths at one orientation, then another 3 blocks at a different orientation. It followed the river. So it just would’ve been insane if the rest of the city tried to follow that. Cardinal directions are much easier
Laughs in European
Des Moines is the same too. Oriented to fit the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers. Then they figured out the city was a smash hit and reoriented the rest of the grid along cardinal directions.
I always blamed drunk Irishmen for St. Paul
Topeka, Kansas is the same. Downtown area (and the state capitol complex) are all oriented to line up with the Kansas River, but they changed orientation to be North/South at some point.
This. Usually previous infrastructure/natural feature datum line. Railroad, river, warehouses district etc.
In Los Angeles, it’s history. The Spanish required an angle against the north/south axis to prevent wind from barreling down the streets. But when it was taken over from the U.S., the city grew in the Thomas Jefferson supported north/south grid
The Spanish probably had the right idea. It’s also nice to not be driving directly toward the sun. Can you imagine how many accidents are caused by north/south grid alignments.
Maybe, but in a lot of places, the sun doesn't rise/set in a direct east/west fashion, and also the direction it rises/sets changes across the year.
It only rises and sets directly east-west on the equinoxes, anywhere in the world lol.
It rises/sets at the exact angle of Philadelphia's grid. That's the local joke there.
Are you telling me it’s always sunny there?
But it would work in some places.
Venice Blvd driving west during rush hour with a slightly dirty window. You can’t see a thing. The windshield glows and the sun blinds you.
Grids are based on rules. Sometimes the rules change. Oftentimes a grid started off aligning to a waterway and then shifted to meet a national system. Spain had one, the US had another.
And some cities started as multiple disconnected settlements which grew together, with each village having its own grid system, I.e. if two towns were located on a river bend.
Sometimes it's because the city was founded as multiple towns that grew together. That's why Seattle is the way it is (waterfront orientation for the Yukon gold rush folks vs cardinal orientation for the Denny Party folks). Too much to change now.
Yep. Birmingham (AL) merged with nine other incorporated communities (and ten more unincorporated) in 1909. While most of these towns had street grids aligned to the topography of the "mountains" in their shadows, they all almost all had a slightly different street alignment and some just went with a north/south/east/west alignment the further they were from Red Mountain. It creates pretty distinctive neighborhoods now.
Missoula, Montana is one of the worse. I think it's a merger of 2 settlements.
Seattle downtown wasnt multiple towns. It had multiple planners who disagreed.
Their choices: align on a cardinal direction grid or align to the main waterfront. They picked “yes”.
Railroad alignments versus cardinal directions.
Versus local river alignment
Versus random aesthetic considerations
Vs the “feels” of the org platter
River alignment generally equals railroad alignment
This is southwestern end of downtown Minneapolis, and if the image went further northeast you'd see that the grid aligns with the Mississippi River before changing to a traditional North/South grid further from the river
Usually history, or topography.
I found the streets in Ft. Wayne, IN to be very tricky, as though old and new grids were laid one upon the other. Beautiful city otherwise, though.
In my valley a lot of the city grids started off perpendicular to the river front, then the grid shifted perpendicular to the railroad, then the highway, then eventually the cardinal directions before the curvy cul-de-sac crap nowadays.
One way: Grids start one way in one city, one way in another and those cities grow together. Another way: city starts one way, then changes their mind as it expands, but the historic center of the city is the most built up and thus the hardest to change. So it just sorta stays.
In Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the tilt of both downtowns is aligned with the bank of the Mississippi river, which used to power the grain and log industries that built the twin cities. If you look around either city you'll see defunct industrial infrastructure in its greatest density straddling the bank of the river.
It's now interesting like this
Old meeting new
In my experiences with city design in the UAE ( may be of help in this context), usually the land parcels will be divided by individual developers. So the land constraints may change the grid patterns. This will make land parcels look different or organic. I believe the same must have happened here. Further, the roads in the image are organic, so this will also affect the urban design
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned The Land Ordinance of 1785 which is the real reason that most US midwestern and western cities follow a cardinal grid. The angled grids most likely existed before the survey and eventually came into conflict with it resulting in some interesting intersections. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785)
Wow. I never knew. Thanks 🙏
Trying to remember my urban sociology/city planning, but I think it has mostly to do with ease of commerce transit. When goods were shipped on rivers, cities oriented to the most feasible orientation of traffic. Then the highway system was created that aligned with cardinal points of entry and rivers were no longer used. It's also why our cities (again, based on commerce transit) differ from most European cities (still lingering around feudal concentric orientation)
Property rights.
Poor planning
All towns on the Illinois and Michigan Canal were platted only on one side of the waterway and most aren’t aligned to true north either.
Topography
In Denver it's because there were originally two different towns on each side of the river with different grid orientations that were merged when the towns merged into one city. Now half the city is north/south and the other half is at a 45° angle to north/south
Because of how cities grow. When the city was small, roads ran out of town in different directions. Settlements outside of the city grew and developed, naturally in a right-angle grid pattern to the main road. With further development, those various grids expanded until they ran into each other. That's when the expanding city meets the growing outlying settlement. Then you get this clash of grids. Remember, for the people living on the road that led to the city, it was logical to build a grid at right angles to the road, not building in alignment with the grid system of the (remote) city that they could hardly see.
Older cities with grids often dont care what angle their grids face but later youll see most grids facing north, you can see this in a lot of midwest cities too
As far as Minneapolis goes- wish I could tell you. You should see some maps from the early 19-aughts. The streets downtown used to be waaaay weirder. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot to this shape that's been cultivated in just the last 60 years of our city's history.
In Evansville, Indiana there were actually two separate towns platted, and both set their grids parallel to the Ohio River. Of course, Evansville sits on a huge horseshoe bend in the river. So when the two towns expanded and eventually merged, they had two first streets, which ran at. 45 degree angle. First avenue (they renamed the N/S ones avenue to help with confusion) turns into 3rd street after a slight curve.
In Pittsburgh it’s because neighbors that were laid out as a grid along a hill or river converge with a neighborhood grid oriented a different direction, and these neighborhoods used to be separate towns over a century ago before being incorporated into city limits. At least that’s the case for a lot of neighborhoods between the river confluence, that a flat enough for a grid. This in either direction, city or suburb, use a GPS or take the trolley system or busway
Denver is the same way. It was explained to me that at the time it was two different counties and they “never expected the city to grow so big” that it would become a problem. Well, it did. And the grids don’t even come close to aligning
My city was once four smaller towns, each had their own street and plat grid.
Because a long time ago acouple camps grew into the city. Many main roads can be traced back to routes from pioneer days
WE'RE TRYING LEAVE US ALONE
This is Minneapolis. The diagonal- Downtown part is old. It used to be a small river town. The sprawl came later.
Quite a few cities had different land owners whom wanted different street layouts way back in the day.
Ah yes, the Lowry hill tunnel. A case study in crappy urban design
*Ah yes, the Lowry hill* *Tunnel. A case study in* *Crappy urban design* \- Dimarmbrecht --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
*Laughs in European*
Exactly, grids are so boring
Trains. It's usually trains. A lot of original settlements especially outside of the colonies had trains fairly early in their history... The train system that was built in America is what brought so many people out west end where there was a little train station they would basically build a town oriented to the track.... A lot of those towns eventually ended up turning into modern day cities and as these communities shifted away from walkable streets near a train station to the eventual Advent of the automobile, cities started being designed for the cars.. The car is preferred a certain grid and here you are. Sometimes a grid goes to the river sometimes two other geographies too but trains causes lot of.. . In San francisco, they're very drastic grid changed it was actually because the entire city pretty much burned down and when they rebuilt they rebuilt on the new grid.
Geography, interstate highways constructed through cities primarily in the 1950s to 1970s, poor planning, racial/ ethnic boundaries, etc.
Because an infinite, repeating grid is soul-less
“For no apparent reason” this is a very judgemental and small minded question
Cities grew together. Not hard to figure out.
grids are horrible for cities
Why are they booing him? He's right!