Fused Grid - The Need For An Alternative

The Need For An Alternative

To function well, a contemporary network must include these advantages from the contrasting patterns thus reducing frictions and conflicts in urban environments. The need for an alternative has been evident since the middle of the 20th century for practical and theoretical considerations. In practice, in the second half of the 20th century citizens of many American and European cities have protested the intrusion of through traffic in their neighbourhoods. Its side-effects were unwelcome as being detrimental to peace, tranquility, health and safety. In response, cities introduced an armoury of controls to ensure that residential districts retained a high standard of life quality. Among these controls were one-way streets, closures, half-closures, traffic circles, and a liberal use of stop signs. These measures being improvised retrofits implied the need for a network pattern in which techniques such as these would be obviated by innovative design. On the theoretical level, planners analysed the conflicts caused by the new urban mobility, proposed alternative schemes and, in some cases, applied them. Alexander proposed (1977) a genetic code of 10 "patterns" which, when combined would resolve identified conflicts and would produce a convivial, gratifying district milieu. A central idea among them is a traffic impermeable neighbourhood area of about 10 ha, reminiscent of the Radburn plan principle but smaller in size. Doxiadis emphasized the importance of mobility and designed a large orthogonal grid (2 km by 2 km)of arterials to expedite circulation, as seen in Islamabad. He also recognized the need to separate “man from machine” and introduced traffic impermeable neighbourhoods also generally resembling the Radburn plan.