swirl gyro wrote:You don't need traffic lights. The streets don't need to intersect at all. But they do need to "touch", so you can get from one to the other. Or you could use onramps/offramps to connect them.
pat wrote:bobxp wrote:swirl gyro: that way, you could only move realmar vehicles around the streets, not flunar vehicles.
I don't see why...
PWrong wrote:I can't help imagining that the shadow of the 4D car looks like an ordinary 3D car, so I get this image of a hovering car turning onto its side to turn left.
wendy wrote:You no more need city blocks in 4D, then you need boom-gates in the blood-system. In fact, the whole point of city blocks, is that a road both unites (ie connects A from B), and divides (ie you have to cross it) in 3D.
In 4D, the road unites (still from A to B), but a 2D space divides. The whole of the 4D city can be set up so that cars go one way (like blood does), and that you can walk from the middle of town to the very edge without having to cross a street.
wendy wrote:The whole of the 4D city can be set up so that cars go one way (like blood does), and that you can walk from the middle of town to the very edge without having to cross a street.
pat wrote:In SimCity 2000 (and, I assume in 2004), citizens will only build a new building within two grid-squares of a road. IRL, we rarely build further than one grid-square from a road (in urban areas).
In 4-D, there have to be similar considerations. You don't want to park your car at the "curb" and still have to walk a long distance to the front door. Though, if you're willing to have a somewhat lengthy driveway (or foyer), you can fudge this more easily in 4-D than 3-D.
So, typically one prefers one's business easily accessible from a main traffic thoroughfare, one's residence just slightly removed from a main traffic thoroughfare, as few intersections as necessary to get you where you want to go, an efficient use of space within your building/home (not many narrow passages or weird angles), and other such things....
[....]Certainly, there can be fewer intersections. But, would people still make some intersections where more than two roads meet? (We don't ever need to do this, but there are plenty of instances of it.)
Would it be just that much easier for each store to have its own parking lot? or would we still have malls?
Would there still be a utility toward a centralized downtown?
wendy wrote:[...]Even so, one does not have to cross the street. The postie could go along a spiral around the road (unaffected by traffic), dropping his letters off.
One could then also beach the cars somewhere off the sprialing or straight footpath, so that people can move along footpaths without having to climb over the beached cars, or crat-slips (driveways).
The average distance to the front might be slightly longer (eg 1,414*), but you can reduce this to one by hexagonal-prism blocks.
Main roads would be typically seven or nineteen-lane affairs, these in each direction. This is partly because we are talking with delivering volume from a 3D space, not from a 2D space, and the ground-horizon is 2D, not 1D. So 7 and 19 lane highways are like our four and six lane things in this world.
None the same, a main road would not greatly impact surburbia. A great road would dangle through the suburbs like a string in so much wheat.
The density of roads and predestrian traffic would be heavier in the city, but we could filter out, easily, busses and taxies into their own networks.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I see how hexagonal prisms shorten the distance.
It could be a pavement that surrounds the road, and cars can park along its inner surface so people can walk about freely with no need to climb over anything.
Any particular reason for the hexagonal layout?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 guests