Why are most of the roads in America in a grid?

Medieval European cities were arranged in a circular fashion around a smaller original settlement, which was itself built in a rough circle around a defensible central position such as a castle or an earthen berm. Buildings were built up against each other over a period of centuries or millenia without any intentional central planning.

In North America, the original cities and towns were massacred and destroyed (or left completely deserted as disease raged ahead of the European conquerors), and new settlements built from scratch over top of the corpses and graveyards of its victims.

They were planned that way by the AASHO in the 1920s. European roads sort of grew as a reflection of cart paths and how people walked.

US roads were actually planned methodically.

It’s not a question of ‘best’ – highways bring commerce and commerce brings highways. My view is that the grid concept is ultimately more efficient/

The Northwest Ordinance act of 1787, among many other provisions, laid out sections for the purchase of land. The former territory of states on the Atlantic seaboard was appropriated (by Congressional acts) and then offered for sale or legitimate claim. As an example, the Ohio Company of Associates was established by two veterans of the revolution who were ceded land by Congress as payment for their services. (Soldiers in the revolution, in particular the officers, were frequently not paid—land claims were a means by which Congress settled claims for arrears of pay.) It was laid out in sections, one mile on a side, containing 640 acres. A half section was 320 acres, a quarter section was 160 acres, and a half-quarter section was 80 acres. Finally, a quarter-quarter section was 40 acres, and hence the origin of expressions such as the south 40. These areas were laid out without regard to geography, so roads got laid out which were the boundaries of the sections, giving a grid of local roads, each square a section, one mile on a side and containing 640 acres. The original Northwest Ordinance encompassed the five territories of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. (The northern part of the Wisconsin territory later became the southern part of Minnesota.) The ordinance also provided that newly added territories would be administered in the same manner as the original Northwest Territory—so the grid spread over the newer territories,too.

Here is a page from Britannica-dot-com with a graphic of how the land grant to the Ohio Company of Associates was laid out—link. As you can see, the township boundaries tended to end up as local roads, nicely squared.

The yanks love waffles

From a pedestrian point of view, while having circles inside of circles has its charm, it is a whole lot easier for an outsider to get from A to B following a grid pattern.

“Yanks” is a disobliging term. The Brits are always rude that way. I for one would appreciate it if i never had to see that kind of snotty epithet again.

While nature may abhor straight lines, man wallows in them.

@Setanta – sort of like Americans calling them Brits?

@Setanta Give your head a wobble & while you’re at it, get over yourself
@elbanditoroso Poignant

It’s interesting to fly over southern Ontario and Quebec. One space settled primarily by the French, the other by the British. Completely different patterns.

Western Canada was sorted out by The Dominion Land Survey

My hometown was originally settled by the French… and then the British tried to lay a grid on top of the original layout. It’s an interesting effect – a grid running out of a fan.

If you walk through old Boston around the Common, you’ll find yourself in a tangle of small winding, charming streets like in Europe. Same with Charleston, Savannah and St. Augustine. These were originally foot and cowpaths made by citizens and herders to get their livestock to the central market or docks. They mostly windinglly radiate outward from what once was the focus of their commerce. Mud and feces ensued and they were bricked or cobbled over, and some were eventually paved with tarmac. But they stayed narrow because valuable, privately owned buildings arose on both sides and removal for merely widening a street would involve much litigation.

Go to cities that were built after 1830 and were built quickly as boomtowns, like San Francisco, Seattle or Sacramento and today you find clean, pre-planned grids. Our older cities evolved much more slowly. Most of the newer ones, after the initial boom or tent city period, were planned for horse drawn buckboard, omnibus and trolley traffic, wider streets for reasons of health and fire safety and in a practical grid. Chicago learned a hard lesson in 1871 as did San Francisco in 1906.

I can’t remember the details but I recall that one of my school professors told the class about a college where they built the buildings but did not install much in the way of sidewalks until after the students were using the place then they went back and put in walks wherever the students had worn trails into the dirt. I thought that sounded like a good way to do it; a little more organic.

^^Some architects and civil engeneers designing new suburbs are now taking that idea up as policy. It’s very natural and democratic. Just turn a bunch of people loose, especially kids, on the grass for a year and you’ll know where to put the town’s walkways. Human-friendly design. It looks nicer, too.

Do you know that Broadway is based on the original Native Americans’ trail through the island and that’s why it is not on a grid like most of Manhattan but crosses the island diagonally? I love that fact.

We have several roads here in Atlanta called “Indian Trail” that were… guess what .. built on old indian trails from 150 years ago.

Following those trails is how America was crossed, crisscrossed and colonized by Europeans and their descendants.

The trails led to the mountain passes, safe river crossings, through the forests on both coasts and to springs in the grassland plains of the middle of the country.

Probably, like Washington, DC, they (grids) were modeled after Roman roads. But more likely set up to handle cars and trucks rather than horses and carts. Keep it close to downtown where most urban dwellers worked, utilize space. You only need a shed or parking space for a car but you need lots of grazing space for 2 horses, or one horse and a goat.

It isn’t a question of Europe v. U.S.; it’s a matter of old v. new.

If you look at the streetmaps for Boston (1630), Weymouth (1622), Gloucester (1623), and other historic places – all places within Massachusetts – you’ll see webs of curving, overlapping roads.

^^ yes. Even the south of Manhattan still has unplanned, curved or at least non-perpendicular streets.

@olivier5 Yes, The Village which was the northern part of the city then and below Canal Street both have very old curvy streets. Canal Street ran along a canal and Wall Street had a boundary wall – wonder if it kept Mexicans out?

@elbanditoroso That was exactly the point. If he wants to make an idiotic and rude remark about an entire nation, he can expect the same in return. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander.

@Setanta Really? I’m referred to as “the Yank” all the time. Doesn’t bother me, these guys like me. I call them Brits and always have. They don’t seem to mind. I never knew that this was considered derogatory. It certainly isn’t here. Nobody seems to mind. Limey bastard is fine among sailors. It’s almost affectionate. Froggy or Frog is a bit much, though. That definitely has a derogatory connotation. You can tell by the way it’s used. But this is an almost exclusively male world I speak of. It might be different in mixed company. I would probably call a woman British if I didn’t know her. But guys? Fuck ‘em if they’re that sensitive. Any guy who’s going to risk a mouthful of teeth over something like that is batshit crazy.

<Giggles, then smirks that superior smirk worn superbly well by us Brits>

@ucme So, do you consider it derogatory in any way to be referred to as a Brit?

After almost 20 years online, i’m fed up with the internet heroes who come to American web sites to make insulting remarks about Americans, safe behind their anonymity, a monitor screen and three thousand miles of ocean. A mouthful of teeth, indeed.

It’s most logical.

“I love Americans, but not when they try to talk French. What a blessing it is that they never try to talk English.” – H.H. “Saki” Munro

Suck it up, yanqui doodle.

@Setanta Oh, the internet. Well, I agree with you there. Special place, isn’t it?

@Setanta “Yank” is a term of endearment. 100 years ago, the US told great Britain and France that the Yanks Are Coming.

@Espiritus_Corvus Of course not, but then i’m not a fragile oversensitive sycophant either.

Never met a Brit that was. That;s good enough for me.

In Chicago we have a few major streets on diagonals. People say those follow old Indian trails

The rest are laid out on a grid. As @Espiritus_Corvus says, “cities that were built after 1830 and were built quickly as boomtowns”.

Developers mapped out the streets on farmland and prairie. You can see where someone had to quickly invent some street names all in a row – Ozanam, Overhill, Ottawa, Oriole, Oleander, Olcott, Osceola, Odell, Octavia…

New Dolly Parton song Yanks for the Mammaries…just yank-ing your chain :)