I understand there were a lot of mistakes with this video, and I apologize for that. The sources I used for this video had very inaccurate information and I am sorry for that. In the future, I will do a better job verifying the information various sources post online before using it in my videos.

The grid vs. radial planning comparison makes no sense. I mean, NY is used as an example in the video and it was designed as a grid way before cars were even invented. Barcelona on the other hand is also a grid throughout almost the whole city and is one of the most walkable cities in the world. The grid city in Europe actually goes back to the Roman Empire, way before US cities were a thing, as they built cities in a grid pattern similar to their military camps, but it was kinda lost during the middle ages and beyond. In fact, usually the most walkable, vibrant and economically active neighborhoods in US cities are exactly where the grids are, as they commonly are the oldest parts of the cities, while the rest is suburbs (which is what should be pointed as why US cities are worst planned than european, not the grid steets). Another thing to note is the US cities do not use the grid pattern anymore for over half a century, which means most of US urban areas came after when grid pattern was the norm. I think if you want to understand where the urban planning in the US differs from Europe and how it impacts things like walkability etc, you should look at zoning and suburbia, as they are what forbids anything other than a single family homes in a cul de sac to be built in most of US cities, and this complete separation between residential and everything else, with the maze-like street patterns of cul de sacs, stroads and highways, is what kills US cities. In comparison, Europe sees mixed used and multi family homes, be it duplexes, triplexes or 4-6 story buildings, as something desirable, not to be avoided. In the end, the older grid neighborhoods are actually where the US cities comes closer to what European cities are like, as they were built before all this zoning and suburbia nonsense

1:52 "In cities such as Paris and Denmark" - Wow! Impressive research.

The more I see how pedestrian friendly I see European cities are the more jealous I become.

You basically stereotyped the Europeans with the French example. I'm from Portugal and our policies don't help farmers keeping their lands instead of selling it to huge developers. What happens here is just the opposite. This is just an example but shows how you have to be careful by stereotyping.

Narrator: European cities did not use the grid plan Me, a catalan: **laughs in Barcelona’s Ildefons Cerdà plan** (Literally the creator of the term “urbanism”) (Also, WTF? The grid plan is an invention of the Roman Empire, any city founded by the romans two milena ago used the grid plan, and you can still see that in old city centers all across Southern Europe)

-London wasn't planned (it's a mess of roads built by different people) -Lots of European cities are grids , they're just designed well with grids - that is no wear close to how you pronounce champs Elysées

The reason that European cities are better designed is not that they don't use the gridsystem. Reasons why Europe is better are: -better infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians -good public transit -mixed Zoning -Cities are much denser (less detached houses), unlike suburbs in America It is also not true that European streets are often build with radial design. I'm European and I have rarely ever seen something like this.

US cities were bulldozed for the car, not designed for the car. Even with the grid system you can easily make it work. Just block of some roads, centre to suburbs make these pedestrian and cycle roads. Side streets closed for cars to, think like 5 to 10 side streets closed before hitting an intersection. Easy, you only need to want it.

NYCs grid was designed in 1811. Well over a century before cars

"European cities had a different look at city planning" you missed one of the most important differences: most European cities old, and the older something gets, the less planned it is. When it's first built every city is kinda planned, but over the years so much has changed in European cities that I wouldn't call much of it planned anymore

You should check your biases and consider that grid method is at least 4000 years older than cars . It was the way at least some ancient cities was built. Also there lots of European cities that are build by grid method at least in some part (like Vasilievsky island in St. Petersburg, that was like Russian Manhattan in 18 century (while other parts of the city was build radially). Even American grids was in place prior to cars adoption. I mean why do you even want grids if you design with cars in mind? Too much intersections will slow down traffic compared with longer stretches of radial main streets. if anything, grid design was perfect for street cars and optimizing density.

Dude you limited your whole research to Paris. Paris is very different than most European cities and is far from organic in its design. Do proper research and don’t stereotype European cities as Paris. And NYC is among the most walkable cities in the US, so you’re actually weakening your argument quite a bit.

Gridded cities were not designed for cars - they were designed initially for horse and buggies but primarily for streetcars and efficient public transit networks. Cars didn’t exist when most gridded cities were planned in the 1800s, but you are correct that they were used to maximize space. Gridded cities are not bad, nor are they a death knell for sustainability or walkability. While they do lack a certain human scaled aspect, making these spaces livable comes down to encouraging granularity in the planning/construction of new buildings and ensuring that public transit and active transportation are given the lion’s share of street space.

My hometown (Turku, Finland) is based on a grid. That's because the whole city burned down (except for the cathedral) in 1827. Then it was rebuilt on a grid for fire safety in mind. Not a north-south-east-west grid, of course. The grid is aligned on the river that flows through the town.

Another awesome video! I love the utilisation of the satellite imagery from Google maps/Earth!

Great Video. Please keep on going :D

00:07 That is incorrect. Even cities like New York were not built car-centric. They were later rebuilt for cars. (60s - apparently today because highways continue to get wider)

Controvercy though but i think the grid system and straight roads are a good way to plan a city

Grid plan was to make things easy to navigate. Boston is an example of a European style city and it is near impossible to navigate for non-residents

I think you have a US-centered view as well as an anti-car bias, grids have been used in many regions of the world (Asia, Europe, Latin America) for centuries before cars even existed, and they aren't necessarily hostile to pedestrians. Most Mexican cities have a historic center based on a grid, and they are dense, bustling and very walkable parts of town, because when they were built everything had to be reachable by walking distance. I think it has to do more with patterns of property and government intervention, as cities in the New World were built from scratch, with the convenience of simple plot structure in mind, because they needed to distribute land among settlers without complication. In cities founded by the Spaniards, it was a tradition to place a square in the center, surrounded by government and church buildings, in case they needed to defend the town they would summon all troops to the square (which was named plaza de armas, or square of arms). Another advantage is that the grid allowed for easy growth to every direction if the terrain allowed it. In contrast, European cities were built in the middle ages, where central government authority was weaker or non-existent, so there was no predefined way to build a city, and towns then grew along the roads that led out of the city or near centers of resources "organically", hence the irregular layout.

My hometown, Buffalo,NY was designed with the radial spoke design. It makes for some interesting building designs.

D.C. is an example of a radial city in the US . It was designed by Pierre Charles L'Efant, after the gardens of Versailles

But… American grids existed before cars were even a concept?

This is a great video! Very nice touch in illustrating the difference between grid and radial. Though, I would like to point out a couple of things between American and European city layouts. Old cities from both continents were originally designed with walking (ex. new york and paris) But the biggest difference is that paris and other old European cities were expanded out organically over houndres or thousands. And for American cities, since America was young, common planning practice was designing everything in a grid (because of the access and commerciability like you stated), and this was common practice across cultures especial through colonial and new world expansions in every western culture :0 However, the largest impact in how cities were designed today was because of the 20th century. The US saw the car and was like, 'this is all we are going to design with', while Europeans tried the car-centric designs too during this time. But Europe realized sooner than the US that cars are not what cities needed and during the 70s, 80s, and 90s transformed their cities with walkability and transit 😎

American Cities weren't designed for the car, they were destroyed for the car. The US used the grid plan way more than 100 years before the invention of the car, and there were more than 50 cities larger than 100k inhabitants even before the car was a thing. And where did you get the weird claim that they were designed for "profitability"?

Options The grid but low density Spaghetti inefficient layout, but mid-rise density to make up for inefficiency, and human scale (feels good to walk, grids feel slower and boring)

This makes no sense. Cities like Melbourne and Vancouver follow the grid layout and are consistently ranked as the worlds most live able cities. Often land use tends to be what makes a city well designed ie, space for roads vs shopping streets. Not the layout

Actually, also the grid method comes from Europe. It was invented by Ancient Romans to build their military camps, called “castra”, and there are a bunch of cities in Europe which still follow this ancient plan like Turin, Italy

Do you write scripts yourself or you have writer? They are really amazing in all the videos.

3:22 Bangkok my mothercity, I really appreciate all the detail you‘ve put into, despite the fact that Bangkok is the only asian city has been shown in this video.

You've butchered the pronunciation of Champs-Élysées 2:38. You also didn't mention the outlier of Washington DC, one of the only cities in the U.S. that was radially designed.

Misleading video title. You didn't describe why Paris is designed insanely well.

It's not true that Europe doesn't use grid city planning. The grid actually harkens back to a Roman military building method in which two main roads would intersect and many paralallel lines would follow each. Today you can see many Roman cities which were initially born as military encampments which have the grid. Similarly, cities built in the neoclassical age, also have a grid inspired by roman designs. Many example are in southeastern Sicily, where at the end of the 17th century a massive earthquake destroyed many old settlements and cities were rebuilt with an almost perfect grid.

cities such as paris and denmark.

Cities such as Paris and Denmark?

This is a huge generalisation. Also you called the country Denmark a city..

I see nothing wrong with new york's design, its actually better designed than london (both cities have a huge traffic problem)because both cities have almost the same population but new york is smaller than London, since Europe doesn't build a lot of skyscrapers the cities keep expanding over time damaging the environment. In my opinion the best designed country is japan with a population of of 125 million and 68.5 % of forest area, if that's not a well designed country then i dont know what that is

cities such as paris and denmark?

1:55 "in cities like Paris and *DeNmArk* "?! Denmark is a nation in Europe, with its capital being Copenhagen

Grids have existed since ancient times. Ancient Egyptians used their own grid system when planning cities, for example. Americans did not create the grid.

Imagine navigating a city using polar coordinates and needing to learn about radians.

My biggest issue with radial cities is the hierarchical feeling between the (generally) rich old central city and the not as rich outer newer parts of the city. Grid cites have a built environment that feels much more equal.

Love America but i look forward to moving to Paris for school. I personally prefer walking over driving. Its like a form of meditation

The cities of Paris and Denmark?

There isnt a decline in people moving away from cities, theres an increase. Not sure where you got that fact from.

Glasgow where I live is a grid system and traffic is bad but it's still walkable and being more pedestrized. Try drive in most towns in Europe they're awful design wise but they're very old so not much u can do

Actually, European cities aren’t just like that because they’re older. Plenty of European cities were going to try the post-WWII American way of urban sprawl, but grassroots protests stopped a lot of them. Some cities did get partially torn down for highways, though. It was also a choice on the part of American people. American cities used to be more pedestrian friendly when we relied primarily on rail to travel and build this country.

'For example cities like Paris or Denmark' LOOOOOOL

I prefer grid, is easy to get around vs radial.

It takes a lot time to drive in American cities. In European cities, for example London or Moscow, it's so easy to go almost anywhere, because there's more roads and and they're not exactly straight

You need to get better-fitting dentures. Also, lots of American cities weren't designed specifically for the car. LA wasn't designed for the car: most of the San Fernando Valley was. Early 1900's films reveal people walking all over New York City streets. You might want to check out NotJustBikes to get a better overview.

“And you might not see many” Meanwhile Barcelona:

Wow dude lots of points missed. Hope you make a revised/better one. Zoning/housing and/or city walkabilty/accessibility are huge factors. To anyone who is dissatisfied with the content of this video: Not Just Bikes covers Everything much better.

In cities such as Paris and DENmARk?

I like to live in city close to others people but it’s expensive. Property price is the one that turns many people off when deciding where to live. Meaningless office jobs and high rental prices doesn’t help city growth much.

Here where I live, in Paraná Brazil, some cities like mine (Cianorte) are radial cities inspired by the garden cities of Ebenezer Howard. You dont need to Go to Europe to see better city plans than USA..

"Europe are well designed" Balkans and Eastern slavs:

"Grid cities are designed for cars" [Citation needed]

what if we combined both methods??🤔🤔

Most european cities were founded before Cars, so streets don't have to be that straight forward, and there are not a lot of Grand highways. I love that about European cities, they are sooo aesthetic. Viena, Oporto and Hamburg are my favourites.

The euopean cities find growing, much. much harder... and the traffic in them is again much much worse. The grid sistem is superior if smaller grids are subdivided and have their own shopping/entertainment/education centers and yes, more, much more green space/parks. The future is probably a mix of them and belt road plus public transport. (... what americans fear the most :)) )

Actually, grid cities weren't build for cars, in my country for example, Colombia, and in general in the Spanish America, Spanish conquistadors build grid cities 300 plus years before cars existed, it was a city design completely oposed to Spanish or European medieval city design. But those were the first grid modern cities. If I'm not mistaken, Mayans and Aztecs also built grid cities. As much as you people like all that "American exceptionalism" bs, Americans didn't invent the grid city. The problem with U.S cities is not that they are gridded, the problem is that the U.S manage to become a car centric society in the XX century, and is understandable, the car was an American invention, but that doesn't have to do with the grid, Europe was incredible car centric too after WWII, because it was the U.S the one who helped rebuild western Europe, and it was the American way the one that imposed itself after the war, but Europeans restarted changing their car centrism from around the 70s or 80s.

Bikes also drive next to cars. in eu btw

Question… how much research do you put before making a video?

Bruh Denmark isn't a city, but whatever

Yeah honestly i love their design. But honestly i love cities with a lot of skycrapers more...

I think that its mainly that european cities are on average not just ‘built’. Theyve evolved over centuries and in some cases millennium’s. Whereas major US cities were built in an already highly industrialised world, and were built over 2 or one century, which meant that standardised layouts already existed and were implemented from the start.

It hard to see How they Can be built in the Middle OF no where like las vegas

Grids have no bearing on walkabilty and your example of the few intersections on the champs élysées is an example of something that is bad for walkabilty because it speeds cars up.

The Grid plan isn't the problem

Denmark is NOT a City, it's a COUNTRY!!

fav

hum! the title is a bit misleading lol

But couldn't you say that in many ways (Paris excepted) that old cities had no planning and just grew haphazardly, while American cities (for better or worse) had a road plan pretty much from the beginning?

Older American cities like Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Baltimore are still very walkable. Urban sprawl is the problem not the grid.

Did he really just say Chanz day leezays

This video is so bad for so many reasons, I've drafted 3 different comments to try and begin to address them and ultimately just decided I don't have the time. I love urban design and city planning channels. Please do better

2:38 ah yes the ChamPS-uh-leeSAYS

1:52 fun fact: Denmark is a country ;)

1:52 Denmark is my city!!!

Detorit is kinda like both

I stopped taking the video seriously when it said New York, a city designed in the 17th and 18th centuries and where over half of the residents take public transit, was designed for the automobile. You can make the argument that the grid system was a lot easier to adapt to the automobile, but in no way was New York designed for it.

America has neighbourhoods where people walk everywhere and live close together. They are called ghettos in Chicago or in NYC the Bronx!!

Dude, we have heaps of microgrids in european cities, but they're broken up into neighbourhoods that are small compared to us neighbourhoods.

Cities like Denmark?

But Barcelona???

I like grid

I live in Milan and haven't owned a car in years. I walk to work, walk to the shops, occasionally take the metro for a night out... American zoning laws are horrible

Us cities are based on math notebooks

new yorks grid plan was made 200 years before car were invented, how tf was it designed for cars? you should use different examples because new york is one of the least car dependant cities in the us.

Yea having hard time to bike around city in the US.

U forget one vital difference. Cities like London, Paris and Berlin didnt start as mass populations at all in the beginning. They were maybe 100 people in these cities as start, and it took many hundreds of years before they reach 10 000. Then hundreds a years to reach 1 million. Comparason to american Cities like New York who gain this populations in matter of very few years. If New York had been develop as a city in europe it would never worked at all and u would got a very strange city.

@Arkive Because Denmark Is A City🇩🇰🇩🇰❤❤ 1:50

The main difference between american and european cities is their age. Cities started to develop in europe in the middle ages or even further in the past. Back in the day city design followed the terrain patterns so that's why most european cities don't have the grid system. But! If you zoom into them, you can see the newly built parts of cities or even villages, almost all of them use the grid pattern. And the other thing is because of age, european cities went through a natural developing progress, and adapted to the actual needs of a certain era. So all in all, american settlements are the result of an artifical planning, while old european cities are mostly developed naturally.

And there is Istanbul. Which is a linear city.

Good video but I winced on the awful pronunciation of Champs-Elysées (Shaw-Zeleezay)

1:52 "European cities such as Paris and Danemark" Denmark is not a city, tho

Why European Cities are Insanely Well Designed, and like allways, exept portugal and eastern europe

Europe included Western Europe, but most of those analysis always ignore them. Also, America includes South America and not only North America (USA and Canada). So it's better to say that you're comparing Western Europe to North America than just Europe to America.