See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/271603372

Block size-based measures of street

connectivity: A critical assessment and new
approach

ARTICLE in URBAN DESIGN INTERNATIONAL JANUARY 2015

DOI: 10.1057/udi.2013.36

READS

61

1 AUTHOR:

Paul Stangl
Western Washington University
12 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Paul Stangl
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 23 October 2015
Original Article
Block size-based measures of street connectivity: A critical
assessment and new approach

Paul Stangl

Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, 516 High Street, MS 9085, Bellingham, WA,
98225, USA.
E-mail: paul.stangl@wwu.edu

Abstract Increased awareness of the benets of a well-connected street network among planning professionals
has encouraged the rapid proliferation of connectivity ordinances establishing minimum standards for new
developments, often measured in terms of block size. This article identies some fundamental aws in commonly
used block-size measures, based on perimeter, area and length of block face, and presents a new, more effective
measure of block size, the block section. The application of the block section to a series of street patterns
demonstrates the basic effectiveness of the measure, establishes benchmarks for comparison and identies issues
with connectivity studies that require resolution in the future.
URBAN DESIGN International advance online publication, 15 January 2014; doi:10.1057/udi.2013.36

Keywords: pedestrians; walkability; land use regulation; block size; street connectivity; neighborhood planning

Introduction direct routes and therefore shorter distances to

The recognized importance of urban street net-
work has prompted a great deal of research, and
inspired works in urbanism has taken this as its
launching point. For instance, Allan Jacobss Great
Streets (1996) examines the conuence of factors
behind the magic of some of the worlds most
beloved urban spaces. Jane Jacobss The Death and
Life of Great American Cities (1961) built a theory of
urbanism on the role of streets. These authors
recognized that even the greatest streets do not
exist in isolation, but derive part of their vitality
from the surrounding street network. Some scho-
lars have focused their efforts entirely on this
network, examining its connectivity, or the den-
sity of connections in path or road network and the
directness of links (VTPI, 2012). The idea is that
areas with high connectivity allow easy movement
in many directions, contributing to accessibility, or
the ease of reaching goods, services, activities and
destinations, which together are called opportu-
nities (Litman, 2012).
A well-connected street network provides a
range of benets to the public. Connectivity is
related to pedestrian activity levels, as environ-
ments with greater connectivity provide more
destinations (Hess et al, 1999; Berrigan et al, 2010;
Giles-Corti et al, 2011; Ozbil et al, 2011). Decades
ago, Jane Jacobs argued the importance of small
blocks (high connectivity) for facilitating social
interaction on streets and the success of small
businesses, contrasting lifeless portions of New
York City (long blocks) with lively areas (short
blocks) (Jacobs, 1961). Connectivity contributes to
decreased arterial trafc, better access for emer-
gency vehicles and cheaper utility connections and
services (Handy et al, 2003.) It is associated with
fewer automobile accidents, especially fatal crashes,
which may have to do with lower speeds in these
areas (Marshall, 2011; Wesley, 2011; Rifatt et al, 2012).
Many residents fail to recognize these public
benets, their desire to exclude trafc from their
neighborhoods setting them at odds with good
connectivity. However, the increasing public
appeal of the New Urbanism has opened the
door to better connectivity in new subdivisions
(Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 2003). This New
Urban awareness has become widespread among
planning practitioners, who in their drive to
improve automobile and pedestrian connectivity
have been searching for means of effectively and
objectively assessing connectivity.

2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International 112

www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/
 Stangl
There are a variety of methods for evaluating
connectivity, each with its strengths and weak-
nesses. Dill (2004) applied a selection of these
measures to a test case in Portland, OR, concluding
that though positively correlated, the measures
did not consistently assign the same level of con-
nectivity for a tract. Some of the most popular
approaches in planning practice and research
include linknode ratio, intersection density, path
density and block size. Linknode ratio divides the
number of nodes (both intersections and cul-de-sac
ends) by the number of links (street segments
between nodes) within a study area, and has
become quite popular in planning practice, where
reducing the number of cul-de-sacs is a major
priority. Its limited use in planning research likely
stems from its inability to directly measure con-
nectivity. Intersection density, or the number of
intersections within a given area, is perhaps the
most popular measure in planning research, due to
its relatively straightforward application and
seeming accuracy. Street network density (linear
feet of roadway per square mile) has been used to a
lesser extent in research, likely as it requires a bit
more work to measure, and is less directly related
to true connectivity than intersection density,
which at least tallies connections between routes.
Both of these measures function as proxies for
connectivity, but do not directly assess it, limiting
their effectiveness in a regulatory role (Stangl and
Guinn, 2011). Pedestrianroute directness, the ratio
of the distance along a street network to straight
line distance, directly assesses ease of movement
through an urban space (Stangl, 2012), but has
received only limited attention from planning
practitioners. Block size, less popular than inter-
section density in research, is spreading most
rapidly among practitioners and could become
the standard for land-use regulation and there-
fore merits investigation of its effectiveness. It is
easily understood, easy to apply and seemingly
foolproof at rst glance. There are several varia-
tions of the block-size measure: some researchers
apply mean block perimeter or mean block area
measures as well as block density (blocks per
square mile) and practitioners enforce limits on
block size, employing block face length, block
perimeter length or block area. These are dened
and examined in the body of the article.
This article is concerned with the efcacy of
block-size measures in urban design and planning
practice, which are seen as means of ensuring the
benets of good street connectivity. There is
increasing interest in regulatory codes and how
2 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
they impact urban environments for better or
worse. (Duany and Talen, 2001; Carmona, 2009).
In The Code of the City, Ben-Joseph (2005) examines
how regulations shape city building in ways that
solve problems, but also how they unintentionally
create problems. Whether a city establishes regula-
tions that are unyielding and predictable as Duany
recommends, or exible as Ben-Joseph recom-
mends, it is important that any measures applied
in the code be as consistent as possible to better
solve problems and avoid undesired impacts. In
fact, Nisha and Nelson (2012) argue that even apart
from ordinances, urban design would stand to
gain from being informed by evidence-informed
decision making. This article examines and identi-
es aws in block-size measures used in popular
connectivity ordinances and indicates potential
unintended impacts on urban design, demonstrat-
ing the long-standing and continued importance of
specic types of street pattern that defy the logic of
these measures. This article offers a remedy to
these problems through a new measure of block
size, the block section. Finally, the application of
the block section to a range of street patterns
provides a context for interpreting block section
measures and illustrates several issues that arise
when applying block-size measures and other
connectivity measures.
Research for this article began with a survey of
the application of block-size measures in land-use
regulation. These measures were then applied to a
range of historic and hypothetical street patterns to
identify potential problems: (i) numerical distor-
tions deriving from changes in conguration, (ii)
insensitivity to obstruction, (iii) restrictiveness
unrelated or poorly related to ease of movement
through an urban space. Much of this work centers
on the popular block face measure extending from
four-way intersection to four-way intersection, a
case of overrestrictiveness. An effective case against
overrestrictiveness is made through a series of
examples demonstrating the historic and contem-
porary signicance of street patterns banned by
this ordinance.
Block Size: Theory and Practice
The basis for employing block size as a measure of
connectivity is that a block is an impenetrable area,
therefore the larger the block the greater its obstruc-
tion of movement through the environment.
Though intersection density measures actual con-
nections, there is no guarantee that the connections
URBAN DESIGN International 112

go anywhere (Stangl and Guinn, 2011). On the
other hand, a limited block size, as a maximum
unit of obstruction, more directly relates to the
goals of good connectivity.
Recognizing the importance of good street con-
nectivity, many North American state govern-
ments, regional planning agencies and non-prots
have published documents providing guidance on
planning for connectivity, and/or published model
ordinances addressing the issue. Block-size regula-
tions gure prominently among these, in particular
block face length limits and block perimeter limits.
Metro, the regional government for Portland,
OR, has played a pioneering role in connectivity
ordinances, and its efforts have been inuential
around the United States. In 1997, Metro established
connectivity standards, and required all municipa-
lities within its jurisdiction to follow them, in con-
trast to most metropolitan areas, whose standards
are only advisory. Block length is regulated by the
spacing of street intersections, which may not be
more than 530 apart, and pedestrian and bicycle
connections not more than 330 (Handy et al, 2003).
Another publication with broad inuence in the
United States, the Smart Code, the ofcial New
Urbanist model form-based code for Traditional
Neighborhood Development, keys block size to
transect zones (position in rural to urban conti-
nuum) with block perimeter limits varying
from 2000 to 3000 (CATS, 2009). The Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet (2009) slightly modied the
Oregon model, calling for street connections at
intervals of 660 with mid-block pedestrian connec-
tions for blocks longer than 400. The New Jersey
Long Range Transportation Plan (State of New
Jersey, 2008a, b) notes the predominance of mea-
sures applying link: node ratio and block size. It
recommends block lengths between 330 and 550,
while noting that these requirements may be overly
restrictive.
Direct regulation of private sector development
is the purview of local governments, which have
enacted connectivity ordinances typically as a
component of subdivision regulations or zoning
ordinances. Block perimeter and block face mea-
sures are dominant here as well, though they are
sometimes combined, and block area measures are
also employed. The following examples were cho-
sen for illustrative purposes.
Portland, OR follows the regional governments
requirements, limiting block face length to 530 and
pedestrian connections to 330. Eugene, OR,
beyond the jurisdiction of Portland Metro, limits
block length to 600 (Handy et al, 2003). In contrast,
2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Block size-based measures of street connectivity
Austin, TX permits block face lengths in new
subdivisions to 1200, as does Ithaca, NY, though
the latter requires blocks exceeding 800 to have a
mid-block pedestrian passage (City of Austin,
2012; City of Ithaca, 2012).
Ventura, CA has a form-based code for several
areas, and its recent Victoria Avenue Development
Code permits a maximum block perimeter of 1600
(City of Ventura, 2009). Fort Collins, CO Land Use
Code requires that for new commercial develop-
ment in Activity Centers block area shall not
exceed 10 acres (City of Fort Collins, 1997).
Medford and Bend, OR combine block length
and perimeter in order to prevent excessively long
narrow blocks, and link these standards to zon-
ing. For instance, Medfords limits for block
length and perimeter are 660and 2100 in resi-
dential zones, 600 and 1800 in the downtown
and Transit-Oriented districts, and 940 and 3760
in Regional Commercial and Industrial Zones
(City of Medford Oregon, 2012). In sum, all of
the major variants of block-size measure are used
in planning practice, and block face length,
measured from through-street to through-street,
is the most prominent.
Misleading Simplicity
The three primary block-based connectivity mea-
sures block perimeter length, block area and
block face length provide seemingly straight-
forward, effective measures that are easy to under-
stand and employ in practice. However, upon
closer examination, some fundamental aws
become evident. Block perimeter length limits are
intended to guarantee an average level of connec-
tivity while allowing some exibility in the length
of individual block faces. This very exibility
undermines its regulatory effectiveness. Consider
three blocks of 1600 perimeter, the maximum
permitted in Ventura, CA, but varying in propor-
tion (Figure 1). The rst block is 400 square, which
would comprise a very highly connected environ-
ment. The second block is 200600, increasing
ease of movement north and south, but decreasing
movement east and west. The nal block continues
this trend, changing the proportions to 100700.
In this nal case, eastwest permeability is very
poor in comparison with the rst block, though the
measure cannot detect this. Such elongated blocks
occur in numerous metropolitan areas, most often
in suburbs, though any urban blocks in the City of
Montreal (6001000) also share this problem.
URBAN DESIGN International 112 3
 Stangl
Block area measurements display even greater
irregularity. Though the perimeter of these sample
blocks remained constant, the area dramatically
decreased: the third block has less than half the
area of the rst block. Thus, the most obstructive
block attains the most favorable measure: a result
of compact shapes having greater area than elon-
gated shapes of the same perimeter.
Some cities attempt to control for such problems
by combining block perimeter measures with a
maximum permitted block face length. This would
solve the problem while allowing for some of the
exibility of perimeter measurements, except for
problems arising in measuring block faces. Block
face measures are the most widely used block-
based measure in planning practice, because, on
the surface, they appear to be the most user-
friendly and error-free approach. Given a regular
grid, this is true. However, many urban and sub-
urban environments are not based on regular
grids. They may be modied grids or any number
of irregular patterns (Marshall, 2011). Therefore,
Figure 1: Block perimeter and area.
All three of the blocks shown here have a perimeter of 1600,
the maximum permitted by the form-based code in Ventura,
CA, USA. Despite the xed perimeter length, elongating the
block increases obstruction across the block face and
dramatically reduced block area.
Figure 2: Limitations of block face measurements.
Block face measurement from three-way to three-way intersection (a) is avoided, as it cannot assess whether streets continue through.
Measurement from four-way to four-way intersection (b) guarantees a through-street, but it may be a loop or part of a series of loops
that still fail to lead through a given direction. More problematic, this type of measurement may be exaggerated when considering
T-intersections (c), resulting in poor connectivity assessments for some well-connected patterns.
4 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
many ordinances measure the distance from inter-
section to intersection as a means of addressing
block face length. If this distance was measured
from any intersection (three-way or more) to any
intersection (three-way or more), there is no guar-
antee that there will be a route that actually leads
through (Figure 2(a)). For this reason, cities such as
Portland, OR require that this distance be mea-
sured from through-street to through-street (four-
way or X-intersections). This is a notable improve-
ment that would seem to resolve the issue, how-
ever, it cannot account for overall street cong-
uration, or how the blocks t together. A pattern
embedding a large obstructive block within a
series of smaller blocks may be congured so that
a series of through-streets comprise each block
length (Figure 2(b)). More signicantly, this
approach is overly restrictive, exaggerating mea-
surements of block length for modied grids
(Figure 2(c)), making them prone to fail connectiv-
ity ordinances.
A Remedy
An alternative block-based measure that resolves
these issues is the block section, dened as the
maximum distance between any two points on
the perimeter of a block, or an area enclosed by
the designated route network (including streets,
alleys and/or pedestrian paths depending upon
the purpose of the investigation or regulation). The
line may be contained entirely within the block, or
in the case of a block containing convex shapes it
may extend beyond the block boundary at some
locations. The block section was developed by the
author through reection on the limitations of
URBAN DESIGN International 112

existing block-size measures and imagining poten-
tial alternatives that better capture the purpose of a
block-size measure to identify the maximum
obstructed area between through-streets. The
block section directly serves this purpose, measur-
ing the maximum extent of obstruction presented
by a block in any direction.
Whereas the block perimeter measures in Figure 1
were shown to be insensitive to the increase in
eastwest obstruction that occurs with block elon-
gation, block section detects these differences and
represents them proportionately (Figure 3). The
block section measure also resolves the major
deciencies of block face measurements. It recog-
nizes small block faces in a manner similar to the
T-intersection to T-intersection measures (Figure 4
(a)), but also recognizes the full extent of a large
irregular block that a T-intersection measure
would miss (Figure 4(b)). Even the more rigorous
X-intersection to X-intersection measure failed to
recognize this larger block. Granted a developer
would have to be highly motivated to lay out such
an obstructive pattern, but more signicantly,
Figure 3: The block section.
The block section measures the greatest straight-line distance
between any two points around the perimeter of an area
enclosed by streets. Unlike block perimeter and block area
measurements, it recognizes the maximum extent of obstruction
presented by a block in any direction.
Figure 4: Block section and block face.
Each of the problems illustrated in Figure 2 are remedied by the block section measure.
2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Block size-based measures of street connectivity
X-intersection measures may drastically exagge-
rate block size when faced with modied grids or
other irregular patterns. In contrast, the block
section measure accurately depicts the extent of
obstruction presented by blocks in these environ-
ments (Figure 4(c)).
Although the block section measure is not as
easy to intuitively grasp as the block face, a table of
regular block sizes and corresponding block sec-
tion measures can be used to provide a frame of
reference (Figure 5). For instance, an irregularly
shaped block section measure of 600 would be
slightly higher than that of a regular 400400
block. A block section measure of 750 would be a
bit higher than that of a 600400 block.
Urban Design Consequences
The application of the block size-based measures to
actual urban environments can illustrate key lim-
itations to existing connectivity ordinances, the
capacity of the block section measure to overcome
these, and most importantly, the importance of
street patterns banned by popular block face-based
connectivity ordinances. Measured from through-
street to through-street, these do not recognize
three-way or T-intersections, and therefore can be
restrictive of some street patterns that have been
important in urban design history and are regularly
employed by leading contemporary urban
designers: modied grids and baroque design ele-
ments. The block section provides a more effective
assessment of connectivity for these patterns, as it
does not rely on distances between intersections.
First, the modied grid takes many forms and
the exact meaning can be difcult to pinpoint.
Marshall (2011, p. 74) lists various schemas for
classifying street patterns, noting that there is
URBAN DESIGN International 112 5
 Stangl
Figure 5: Block section and block face length.
This graph depicts the relationship between block face lengths
for a regular grid and the corresponding block section
measurements. The shaded area shows possible block section
lengths for blocks with a minimum width of 100 ft. A typical
block in Portland, OR, USA. (a) measures 250250 and has a
block section of 354, comparing favorably with a block in Salt
Lake, UT, USA which measures 780780 and has a block
section of 1103. All measurements were taken from street
centerline to street centerline.
ambiguity in the meaning of any particular cate-
gory as the worlds cities present a continuum of
possibilities rather than a set of categories. The
term clearly indicates some deviation from the
regularity of an orthogonal grid, but difculty
arises when attempting to establish a sharp bound-
ary between the modied grid and organic pat-
terns some medieval cities display considerable
regularity that approximates a modied grid. This
article will rely on Anton Nelessens denition:
The modied grid relies on the use of the T
and the crossroad intersection [X intersection].
The irregular grid is the richest in positive
visual and spatial characteristics. The modied
grid responds well to incorporating topo-
graphic features and creating a road form
where the community is surrounded by open
space. Streets can be visually terminated by
larger buildings or green vistas. The modied
grid allows ideal street enclosure from both
ends and provides for multiple alternative
routes. (1993, p. 194).
6 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
It is the skillful placement of streets and deployment
of the three-way intersections that results in these
advantages, most notably for the connectivity issue:
its ability to permit movement in all directions,
while acting as a trafc-calming device that has
been shown to increase safety for pedestrians and
cyclists (Dumbaugh, Li & Joh, 2013).
Second, baroque urban design, which employs
T-intersections in an entirely different manner, has
a long tradition in Europe and North America that
continues to the present day. There is some ambi-
guity as to what constitutes baroque urban design,
due to great continuity with Renaissance urban
design, and the fact that some aspects of the
baroque predate the Renaissance (Kostof, 1991,
p. 216; Morris, 1994, pp. 163164). This article
follows those who refer to the grid as an expression
of the Renaissance, and see the baroque as an effort
to impose a larger, more complex order, compris-
ing: primary straights streets, often diagonals;
enclosed spaces (that is, squares and circuses) that
are typically the termini of the straight streets;
monumental focal points (centered in enclosed
spaces or marking a prominent or dominant edge);
and localized geometries of street and space, most
notably the trivium and polyvium (Figure 6).
The most complete expression of baroque urban
order is manifest in ideal city plans, whose straight
streets and enclosed spaces constituted a symmetri-
cal whole. A rare realization of these ideals are
found in Palma Nova in Italy, which follows a
radially symmetric pattern extending from the cen-
tral square to the city wall. However, such aspira-
tions for total order are not feasible in existing cities,
where, at best, a sufcient number of baroque
elements were imposed in a network linking diverse
portions of the city: primary straight streets cut
axes through the city, terminating in circular or
rectangular enclosed spaces. Rome and especially
Paris are the premiere examples, whereby axes
connect enclosed spaces with grand monuments.
In certain locations, baroque ordering neither
spans the city, nor is limited to a single street and
square, but creates a localized order or ensemble.
This typically occurs where the trivium or poly-
vium are not cut through the urban fabric as in
Paris, but establish a pattern that shapes its nearby
environment. In other words, the key enclosed
space provides a datum organizing the pattern of
surrounding streets into an ensemble. Piazza Giu-
seppe Mazzini in Rome and Landsdowne Crescent
in the Notting Hill section of London are exemp-
lary in this regard (Figure 7). In sum, baroque
street layouts offer some of the same benets
URBAN DESIGN International 112
 Block size-based measures of street connectivity

Figure 6: Trivium and polyvium.

Piazza del Popolo, Rome and three intersecting radial streets together comprise a trivium (LHS). Background streets are shown in
gray, illustrating how this baroque element cuts through the existing urban fabric. Place Charles DeGaulle, Paris and radiating
boulevards create a polyvium (RHS). Rue de Tilsitt, the outer circle, repeats the shape of Place DeGaulle, demonstrating one means
by which baroque spaces can form a datum shaping surrounding streets. All illustrations from Figure 6 to Figure 11 depict a 0.5 mile
0.5 mile area.

Figure 7: Street ensembles.

Piazza Mazzini in Rome (LHS) and Landsdowne Crescent in London (RHS) are enclosed baroque spaces that set a pattern followed
by surrounding streets (black). This highly localized order interrupts the nearby urban fabric, which breaks into other patterns (gray).

as modied grids, and in addition, can improve
long-distance movement across the city with diag-
onal streets, and add extremely high levels of
imageability and legibility to urban environments.
Though the Renaissance grid has dominated
American city building, both the modied grid
and baroque street patterns have a long tradition
and have undergone a revival with the New
Urbanism. A selection of streets from Portland,
ME illustrates a traditional modied grid and the
problems it raises for through-street block-size
measures (Figure 8). The highlighted block would
fail Eugene, ORs connectivity test, though a much
larger block with through-streets would pass the
test. The block section measure avoids the confu-
sion resulting from T-intersections. This limitation
of through-street measures is amplied along the
primary through-street, though this problem is
sometimes overcome with a separate arterial con-
nectivity ordinance, limiting the distance between
streets intersecting with the arterial.
More recently, the modied grid with T-inter-
section has become a common feature in New
Urbanist subdivisions, as it mediates the contem-
porary desire of municipalities to increase connec-
tivity and the desire of residents to avoid the
impact of through-trafc. Many new neighbor-
hoods employ this pattern in a portion of their

2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International 112 7

 Stangl
layout, and some opt for a complete modied grid
plan. One of the best New Urban expressions of
this pattern is found in Habersham, SC (Figure 9).
Numerous blocks would fail a through-street con-
nectivity test for excessive distance between
through-streets, though one could continue across
Figure 8: Modied grid, Portland, ME, USA.
An intuitive glance reveals block face measurements of 455 (a)
200 (b). However, a through-street connectivity ordinance
would measure the street along the western edge (c) as 705,
indicating rather poor connectivity. This problem is amplied
along the main through-street (d), where a block face
measurement would extend 1770. The block section measure
(e) 490 is not distorted by T-intersections. (See Figure 5 for a
comparison with other blocks.)
Figure 9: Modied grid, Habersham, NC, USA.
This modied grid, without alleys (LHS) includes six locations where opposing T-intersections result in slight jogs for through-trafc
(depicted with black lines). Eugene, ORs connectivity ordinance would restrict such a layout, as the distance between through-streets
965 (a) is often too long. In this case, the 175 jog (b) would meet Eugenes intersection offset requirement, but several other locations
in the development do not. Alleys (RHS) are not paved and do not count as full streets, so they are not counted in block face
measures for automobiles, but provide additional routes for pedestrians.
8 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
with a slight jog between T-intersections. Addi-
tionally, many city ordinances establish a mini-
mum distance between intersections, which would
force greater distance between T-intersections,
making them less effective at accommodating
through-trafc.
Through-street distance limits are also proble-
matic for baroque urban design. The American
baroque tradition reaches its apex in the planned
city of Washington DC, where an array of boule-
vards link enclosed spaces as Logan Circle, Dupont
Circle, Mt Vernon Square and Lincoln Park, to
name a few. City Beautiful Era planning efforts in
many cities attempted to add diagonal boulevards
and parkways leading to plazas, though a far
smaller number of these were realized. The Benja-
min Franklin Parkway and Logan Circle in Phila-
delphia, North Clybourn Avenue and Seward Park
in Chicago (among numerous other examples in
that city), and Columbus Circle and Broadway in
New York are all representative. The US baroque
tradition includes a modest, but signicant sample
of ensembles in which enclosed spaces (sometimes
spaces lacking enclosure) establish a datum for
surrounding streets. Grand Circus Park in Down-
town Detroit is perhaps the premiere example,
though others can be found such as Ladd Circle
Park in Portland, OR.
The problem regarding baroque space and
block-size connectivity ordinances, as in the case
of modied grids, stems from the use of T-intersec-
tions. Great enclosed spaces are often connected by
a combination of X- and T-intersections, exaggerat-
ing block face measurements or they are entered
URBAN DESIGN International 112

Figure 10: Traditional American baroque spaces.
Grand Circus, Detroit, MI, USA (LHS) creates a block edge that would measure 640 by through-street standards (a), though trafc is
only required to make a 200 jog (b) to continue in any direction. The block section measurement 590 (c) approximates that of a
400400 grid, providing a better assessment of the obstructive impact of this block. DuPont Circle, Washington DC (RHS) has no
through-streets and thus provides neither a start point nor end point for measuring a block face (d), however, the block section
measure is 420 (e).
only through T-intersections, making it impossible
to measure block faces. For these reasons, Grand
Circus Park would have an excessively long block
face measurement and DuPont Circle would have
no starting or ending point for measuring a block
face (Figure 10).
Currently, the baroque is back in vogue. New
Urbanist designers have employed baroque-
inspired layouts in some of the best contemporary
efforts in neighborhood design. Compared with
their antecedents, these New Urban spaces are
more park-like and have less strong enclosure; an
adaptation of baroque principles to suburbia.
Washington Town Center in New Jersey employs
a modied trivium at its center, its pattern shaping
surrounding streets in an ensemble (other portions
of the development follow a modied grid pat-
tern). In Kentlands, MD, a circus surrounded by
multi-family housing for stronger enclosure con-
tains a park with a swimming pool and tennis
courts. Andres Duanys Seaside in Florida enjoins
two enclosed spaces in a larger ensemble, creating
the most imageable of new urban street patterns,
but like the spaces above, it would fail the typical
block face connectivity ordinance (Figure 11).
Many, though not all, of the examples discussed
above are park spaces. Some connectivity ordinances
would exempt these while others would apply the
same restrictions. The most developed ordinances
establish separate connectivity requirements for spe-
cial conditions, such as topography, wetlands and
other barriers, which may include parks. Portland
requires connections every 8001200 for protected
2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Block size-based measures of street connectivity
water features (c. 530 for ordinary blocks), but
does not mention parks. Larger urban parks do
have intermittent street crossings, and future
research may investigate appropriate standards
for connections across different types of open
space. For the purpose of this article, it sufces to
say that parks and open spaces need to be con-
sidered by connectivity ordinances as they often
abut new development, and in this regard they
should be fairly assessed.
Assessing an Area
A variety of block measures have been used to
evaluate the connectivity of study areas in urban
environments, though some are more effective than
others. Block density measures (blocks per square
mile) may be signicantly skewed by the placement
of study area boundaries, as blocks cut by a bound-
ary would not count. Hence a small shift in these
boundaries could make a large difference in some
cases. Average block face length and block area are
subject to the same problems that limit its effective-
ness as a regulatory tool. Block perimeter and block
section may prove reasonably effective for this
purpose. The application of the block section to a
range of existing street patterns demonstrates its
potential for area-wide assessment, provides bench-
marks for setting maximum block section sizes and
raises some important questions for connectivity
studies in general and block-based measures of
connectivity in particular.
URBAN DESIGN International 112 9
 Stangl
Figure 11: Seaside, FL, USA.
This renowned New Urban development includes two
adjoining enclosed spaces, each of which would fail commonly
used connectivity standards. Central Square is 350 long (a),
but the X-intersection block face measure (b) is 755 ft. The
block section of 375 approximates that of Portland, ORs 250
blocks. Attempting to measure the block face of adjoining
Smolian Circle according to this measure would result in a
distance of 1330 (d), while its block section (e) is only 480, less
than that of a 400400 block.
A representative sample of street patterns was
selected to demonstrate the application of the
street section to area-wide connectivity assessment
(Figure 12). A quick visual assessment of the
patterns and their corresponding scores suggests
some consistency. The top row includes extremely
walkable urban neighborhoods with varied pat-
terns but great consistency in scores (420505 for
automobiles, 395450 for pedestrians). The middle
row contains urban centers with modest variability
in scores (605760 for automobiles, 460570 for
pedestrians). The bottom row includes suburban
areas ranging from the planned neighborhood of
Radburn to an archetypal sprawl subdivision in
Alpharetta (12704550 for automobiles, 5154550
for pedestrians).
The importance of separately analyzing automo-
tive and pedestrian connectivity is apparent, as the
scores were radically different for two of these
cases: Perth and Radburn. Perth and Midtown
New York also demonstrate attempts to increase
connectivity by adding streets or pedestrian paths
through very long blocks, a common process in
such areas (Siska, 1997). Yet, decisions made regard-
ing the coding of the automotive and pedestrian
10 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
networks can have signicant impacts on scores.
First, does the automotive network consist solely of
full-street connections or do alleys count? Alleys
provide numerous benets (Ford, 2001), but they
may not contribute much to actual permeability
and circulation. In the Perth example, the three
smallest blocks are alleys internal to larger blocks
that do not lead anywhere, and removing these
from the study raises the average block size from
665 to 715. Similarly, alleys running up the center
of very long, narrow blocks do little to add to
permeability, but will add substantially to intersec-
tion density and route density scores, and mod-
erately to block perimeter and block section
scores. On the other hand, alleys traversing long
blocks will contribute substantially to potential
movement.
The impact of a few number of extremely small
blocks can be signicant even when only counting
full streets. For instance, Riverside, IL, USA
includes many triangular open spaces where
streets intersect diagonally, some of which are
large enough to serve as pocket parks and others
simply as ornamental spaces. These add little to
connectivity due to the very large size of the blocks
they adjoin (Stangl and Guinn, 2011). Should there
be a minimum size to qualify as a block? In the
Riverside case, the problem may not be absolute
block size, but the contrast between block sizes.
The situation for parks is more complicated. Den-
ing blocks according to sidewalk patterns through
parks may result in numerous tiny blocks, greatly
altering study area scores, while simplifying the
patterns to represent overall through-movements
may deviate substantially from actual possibilities.
Finally, some considerable complexity is involved
in deciding on a basis for constructing a pedestrian
route network. Should sidewalks be required on
both sides, one side or not at all? The Alpharetta
neighborhood (Figure 12) does not include any
sidewalks, which is ne for cul-de-sacs, but whether
collectors with no sidewalks should be included in
a pedestrian network is highly questionable. In
downtown Perth, a considerable number of arcades
greatly improve pedestrian activity through long
blocks, but these are physically closed at night.
How should the distinctions between exterior and
interior or public, private and privately owned
public space be addressed when building a pedes-
trian network. This is not necessarily straightfor-
ward, as some privately owned outdoor spaces are
always available for the public to traverse, whereas
some publicly owned spaces are locked at cer-
tain hours. Further research may help establish
URBAN DESIGN International 112
 Block size-based measures of street connectivity

Figure 12: Average block sections.

For 0.5 mile 0.5 mile study areas, streets and alleys are shown in a thicker gray line and pedestrian connections in a thinner black
line. Corresponding block section measures follow in parentheses for: (a) London, England (Marylebone); (b) Paris, France
(Montmartre); (c) New York, NY, USA (Greenwich Village); (d) Barcelona, Spain (LEixample); (e) Perth, Australia (Downtown); (f)
New York, NY, USA (Midtown); (g) Fairlawn, NJ, USA (Radburn); (h) Reno, NV, USA (residential neighborhood); (i) Alpharetta, GA,
USA (residential neighborhood).

standards for these studies, and at present, research-
ers and practitioners need to be clear about the bases
used in construction their street and pedestrian
networks.
Conclusions
The use of block-size measures in connectivity
ordinances has been rapidly spreading, because
they are intuitively understood, easy to apply and
appear to be very effective. However, only block
face measures are not distorted by changes in block
conguration (compactness versus elongation).
Yet, when measured between T-intersections,
block face length loses effectiveness. When
measured from through-street to through-street
(X-intersections) block face assessment is largely
effective. However, an ordinance based on this

2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International 112 11

 Stangl
measure will be overly restrictive, and have sig-
nicant consequences for urban design, eliminat-
ing the possibility of some of the most inspired
neighborhood street patterns. The block section
measure consistently assesses the extent of obstruc-
tion presented by blocks, regardless of the use of
T- or X-intersections. A connectivity ordinance
based on this measure cannot be gamed, and will
not be overly restrictive.
The brief application of the block section to urban
environments demonstrates its apparent effective-
ness in this regard, though additional studies are
necessary to compare the relative consistency of this
and other connectivity measures. Also, further
research on the bases for coding automotive and
pedestrian networks may demonstrate the impor-
tance of establishing standards in this area. Research
and planning practice involving street network con-
nectivity is relatively new and rife with uncertainty.
The myriad claims made for costs and benets
associated with connectivity levels and decisions
affecting the approval or rejection of development
proposals should rest on rm foundations.
References
Ben-Joseph, E. (2005) The Code of the City: Standards and the
Hidden Language of Place Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berrigan, D., Pickle, L. and Dill, J. (2010) Associations between
street connectivity and active transportation. International
Journal of Health Geographics 9(20): 118.
Carmona, M. (2009) Design coding and the creative, market
and regulatory tyrannies of practice. Urban Studies 46(12):
26432667.
Center for Applied Transect Studies (CATS). (2009) Smart code v.
9.2, www.smartcodecentral.org, accessed 18 November 2012.
City of Austin. (2012) Austin city code. Subdivision, Chapter 254.
City of Fort Collins. (1997) Fort Collins land use code. Online
version published by Colorado Code Publishing Company,
27 March, http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/
article3.htm#div3d6, accessed 2 December 2012.
City of Ithaca. (2012) The code, 7 November, http://ecode360
.com/IT1348, accessed 18 November.
City of Medford Oregon. (2012) Municipal code, http://www
.ci.medford.or.us/Code.asp, accessed 18 November.
City of Ventura Community Development. (2009) Victoria
Avenue Corridor Plan & Development Code, 20 April,
http://www.cityofventura.net/les/le/comm-develop/
Forms%20and%20Documents/Victoria%20Plan%20and%
20Code%20for%20web.pdf, accessed 12 November 2012.
Dill, J. (2004) Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and
walking, TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM, http://www
.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/TRB2004-001550.pdf.
Duany, A. and Talen, E. (2001) Making the good easy: The
smart code alternative. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(4):
14451468.
Dumbaugh, E., Li, W. and Joh, K. (2013) The built environ-
ment and the incidence of pedestrian and cyclist crashes.
Urban Design International 18(3): 217228.
12 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317
Ford, L. (2001) Alleys and urban form: Testing the claims of the
new urbanism. Urban Geography 22(3): 268286.
Giles-Corti, B. et al (2011) School site and the potential to walk to
school: The impact of street connectivity and trafc exposure in
school neighborhoods. Health and Place 17(2): 545550.
Handy, S., Patterson, R. and Butler, K. (2003) Planning for Street
Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. Chicago: American
Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report 515.
Hess, P., Vernez Moudon, A., Snyder, M. and Stanilov, K. (1999)
Site design and pedestrian travel. Transportation Research
Record 1674(2): 919.
Jacobs, A. (1996) Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New
York: Random House.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Planning. (2009)
Street connectivity zoning and subdivision model ordi-
nance. March, http://www.kapa.org/documents/Kentucky
%20Connectivity%20Model%20Ordinance%20FINAL.pdf,
accessed 16 November 2012.
Kostof, S. (1991) The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings
through History. Boston, MA: Bullnch.
Litman, T. (2012) Evaluating accessibility for transportation
planning: Measuring peoples ability to reach desired goods
and activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, http://
www.vtpi.org/access.pdf, accessed 10 January 2013.
Marshall, S. (2011) Streets & Patterns. London: Spon Press.
Morris, A. (1994) History of Urban Form: Before the Industrial
Revolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nelessen, A. (1993) Visions for a New American Dream: Processes,
Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Commu-
nities. Chicago: APA Press.
Nisha, B. and Nelson, M. (2012) Making a case for evidence-
informed decision-making for participatory urban design.
Urban Design International 17(4): 336348.
Ozbil, A., Peponis, B. and Stone, B. (2011) Understanding the
link between street connectivity, land use and pedestrian
ows. Urban Design International 16(2): 125141.
Rifaat, S.M., Tay, R. and de Barros, A. (2012) Urban street
patterns and pedestrian trafc safety. Journal of Urban Design
17(3): 337352.
Siska, A. (1997) The effects of block size and form in North American
and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology 1(1): 1933.
Southworth, M. and Ben-Joseph, E. (2003) Streets and the Shaping
of Towns and Cities. Washington DC: Island Press.
Stangl, P. and Guinn, J. (2011) Neighborhood design, connectiv-
ity assessment and obstruction. Urban Design International
16(4): 285296.
Stangl, P. (2012) The pedestrian route directness test:
A new level-of-service model. Urban Design International
17(3): 228238.
State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
(2008a) Transportation choices 2030: New Jersey long
range transportation plan, October, http://www.state.nj
.us/transportation/works/njchoices/documents.shtm,
accessed 16 November 2012.
State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation (NJDOT).
(2008b) New Jersey Long Range Transportation Plan 2030. Tech-
nical Memorandum: Task 11: Local Street Connectivity Redened.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). (2012) Roadway
connectivity: Creating more connected roadway and
pathway networks. TDM Encyclopedia, http://www.vtpi
.org/tdm/tdm116.htm, accessed 10 January 2013.
Wesley, M. (2011) Does street network design affect trafc
safety? Accident Analysis and Prevention 43(3): 769781.
URBAN DESIGN International 112