Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/27856
A Barbecue at the Hexagon’s Northeast Hub POSITION H BY TODD DANIELSON exagonal neighborhoods? It seems like science fiction or something concocted for a World’s Fair (which it was), but in the early 20th century, such a design was considered as a replacement for the rectangular grids that were the basis for most U.S. cities. This issue of GeoWorld features a fasci- nating article on the benefits of hexagonal developments (see “Thinking Outside the Blocks: Hexagonal Planning Ready for a Comeback,” by Daniel C. Bally, page 14). The article presents several GIS-based reasons to adopt the system, and the facts in terms of infrastructure savings seem indisputable. It really would cost much less in terms of streets, sewer sys- tems and other utilities, but could it ever replace the omnipresent loops and cul-de- sacs that dominate modern suburbia? It Almost Happened According to Bally and other research on the topic, there was a concerted effort in the early 1900s to replace the grid-based system most famously found in Manhattan. At the time, the grids were almost universally panned. According to New York architect and art historian Charles Lamb, “The gridiron system of New York can be shown as pos- sibly the most unsatisfactory of all forms of street arrangement, if the convenience of the citizen be considered, while the artistic possibilities have been ignored.” Lamb believed in the hexagonal sys- Todd Danielson is editor of GeoWorld magazine, PO Box 773498, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477; e-mail: tdanielson@geoplace.com. 4 G E O W O R L D / M A R C H 2 O 1 1 tem, and due to his strong influence in art and architecture (he designed the Madi- son Square Arch and other monuments), the hexagonal city plan he unveiled in 1904 was strongly considered as a “utopian model” for future development. He claimed that such a system would not only allow for the creation of beautiful European-style boulevards such as the Champs Elysees and Ber- lin’s Unter den Linden, but also allow for planned growth and healthy living. He noted that the hexagon created efficient diagonal streetways as well as more room for parks and art centers. And although he didn’t have a GIS to back him up, he understood that it was mathemati- cally more efficient than other layouts. Other designers created similar plans, including one that was started for Detroit, but a complete city never materialized. New Jersey Killed the Hexagon Ironically, it was a failed plan created in 1929 for Radburn, N.J., that grabbed designers’ imagination and moved the hexagon to the back burner. Clarence Stein and Henry Wright created a neigh- borhood design of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs that, although it col- lapsed during the 1930s depression, became the model for modern America. “The cul-de-sacs eliminated the grid’s problem of through traffic on local streets, and pedestrian underpasses ensured that children did not have to cross a street to reach the parks or school,” wrote Stein. It was a radical design, and it changed the world. Just think of how much this adoption affected millions of lives. If you’re like me, you have childhood memories of playing basketball in a flattened cul-de-sac or riding bikes along winding roads that wove between housing developments. Had we had hexagons, the roundabout would be a common router between roads and not the stop signs and traffic lights that domi- nate our commutes. Parks and communal areas would’ve been commonplace and not something that modern developments create as a “bonus” to live in a particular area. The hexagon pattern would’ve demanded them in many areas. And directions would be entirely different. After reading Bally’s article many times, I’m still not sure how I would describe hexagonal navigation. It’s fascinating to think about the possibilities that could’ve been enacted almost 100 years ago. Life would’ve been very different in many ways I can’t completely imagine. And it came close to happening.