h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but isn't a block a tad bigger than smidgen?

What's a Block?

We had a great time in London, thanks. The huge advantage is that everyone spoke English ... and we picked it up in just a few days

I'm sure we took some extra tube rides since the tube map is not to scale, and so we couldn't tell how far apart the stations were. But all in all, the system was great, especially the map which has a very interesting history itself. Not needing to drive is a great benefit not available in many U.S. cities, even the ones with subways (tubes) - only San Francisco comes to mind.

We had been alerted to the A to Z street map and bought one on arrival. Unfortunately, we started walking the first morning after an all night flight, and the jet lag got us lost anyway. After a few days, though, we got the hang of it and used the A to Z regularly, and did a LOT of walking. Cars actually stop at pedestrian crossings - amazing.

I would say that a spider's web is probably laid out a little more logically than London streets. The only city to top it is Tokyo, where the street addresses are not sequential, e.g., 1000 Fuji might be next to 25600 Fuji. Why they even bother with numbers is beyond me.

Assuming you're not being facetious ...

If you read the whole thread, you might infer (but then again you might not) that a block is a unit the Americans use when describing street layouts. A block is the distance between two streets. Some people use the term 'a block' as if it is a standard measurement, which confuses the hell out of me and caused me to start the thread in the first place!

I guessed that. I hate it when people use it as a standard term. In fact it annoys the hell out of me. I live in England and my block consists of about fifty to seventy houses and yes you can go round it in a fit of temper.

(Maybe somebody up there said this already, I may have missed it ...)

I live in the USA, near Houston, Texas. Based on my '99 vacation in London, I can see the confusion, a little. I grew up in Oklahoma City, in the flat plains of the US midwest. That city was (is?) nearly a perfect square grid, since it was laid out from scratch by engineers (I am one, so save the flames). The whole state was opened up to white settlers one day in the early 20th century, the next day there was a city (the Five Civilized Tribes were none too happy ...) Engineers used to be trained in drafting, using a triangle drawing tool. They all felt comfortable with the right angle and the two "straight" sides, but that angled third side made them uncomfortable.

So Okla. City, and most later US cities I think, are laid out as square grids - boring, practical, you pick the word. Okla. City has a major street every mile, both north/south and east/west. These are main thouroughfares, with four lanes, street lights, etc. So I grew up at 1001 N.W. 32nd Street. Anyone could drive straight to it, knowing that it was ten "blocks" west off the "mile street" at zero - the north-south one which I think was Santa Fe - and 32 "blocks" north of the "mile street" at zero east-west, Main Street. The "blocks" are approximately the same length, about a dozen per mile - but it doesn't really matter, you just look at the numbers and you know pretty much where you are, Cartesian coordinates.

Houston is an older city and more like London, it grew together from a number of smaller towns - to a lesser degree than London, but the same idea. The streets are a VERY rough grid (actually several adjoining rough grids, not at the same NSEW orientation) and they change name, direction, etc. with regularity - streets that are parallel in one place intersect in another, the street addresses can be meaningless - but generally they help. My impression of London is several million adjoining grids, roughly an acre in size .

I moved to Houston to go to college, and for the first year or so, wherever I was, I had to go back to the school to go somewhere else - even if I was within a few "blocks" of the new destination - because I could not fathom the street names/numbers. This is like the London tube, where tourists (like me) will take three tube rides to go a few ... uhhh ... blocks. But its a lot more interesting, every drive used to be an adventure - like London, which I found very exciting. Now I know most (not all) of the Houston streets, its mostly boring. I will never know London streets to the point of being bored, I don't think that's possible.

Well, actually the movie said that *one teaspoon* full of it would wipe out an area of 8 city blocks radius.. The several-rockets-worth of gas that they actually "stole" would be hundreds if not thousands of times as much..

The actual quote is given above, i.e. that 'one teaspoon detonated in the atmosphere will wipe out every living thing in an eight block radius'. Eight BLOCKS, not city blocks, in case there is a difference. One rocket was said to be able to wipe out 60,000 to 70,000 people. As the general had 15 rockets that's 900,000 to 1,050,000 people. That's a sizeable chunk of the San Francisco population.

Let me put you straight on one thing. London is not "several million adjoining grids, roughly an acre in size". The only town in Britain that I KNOW has been built on a grid system is Milton Keynes, a 'new town' in Bedfordshire (I think). Here some of the main streets from district to district are given H or V numbers, depending on whether they run East/West or North/South. Even here the numbers are supplemented by names. The British just aren't comfortable with things like 'East 53rd Street', or whatever.

Every other town or city in Britain that I have visited seems to have come about like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin; they 'just growed'. Even towns like Redditch, Worcestershire (where I live) which has seen a lot of new development has not used a grid system for the new housing areas. There may be some areas in large towns like London and Birmingham which are fairly grid-like, but close inspection of a map will reveal that these are islands of logic in a sea of chaos.

Towns laid out on grids in tne UK go back much futher than Milton Keynes (land of the concrete cow).
When the romans built Winchester they laid there town out as a grid.
Mind you we brits have done a bit of remodelling since.

First, I of course had my tongue in my cheek about London being several million adjoining grids, an acre each. That was meant to mean no grid at all. A bowl of spaghetti might be a better metaphor.

At a much lower level, Houston's freeways can seem like that to newcomers. I was a newcomer in the late 60's, seeing freeway intersections with four, five, six levels of overpasses was a little overwhelming for a midwesterner. A comic told a joke about a driver who pulled into a gas station to ask directions, four guys ran out, ripped off and changed his tires, and yelled "Get back out there, you're in fourth place!"

My wife and I will definitely return to England for more exploration, the Roman past is high on our list. Where is Winchester (from London - train ride?) What are the "don't miss" Roman spots? I recall a Monty Python bit about a Jewish rabble rouser trying to incite the crowds against the Romans. "What have the Romans ever done for us?" After a long pause, "Well, they built the roads." "OK, the roads, what else?" "Well, the aqueducts." "OK, ..." etc. Hilarious.

The Ordnance Survey maps include one of the Roman roads in England. It's great to follow them as they go abruptly from main thoroughfare to tiny country lane - all dead straight,however. Lincolnshire's a good place to explore on this map -most of the main roads into Lincoln were originally Roman. The main road from Lincoln to York passes through some nice countryside and it's not very croded.

I know the Romans built their towns on a grid system - they just loved their straight roads. But I don't know of any British town that you can look at a map of and see the Roman grid. British towns have been built over so much the grid disappeared centuries ago. The only towns where you could hope to see a grid pattern would have to have used it within the last 500 years or less.

Hi Steve
Winchester is about 1 hour on a train from Waterloo, but don't expect much Roman remains, as i said we brits have done a bit of remodelling since.
It is however a Cathederal City with a lot of history as it was the capital of Wessex. King Alfred, Burnt cakes and all that, about 900 and something AD.
If its Roman you want I think the biggest bit available in the south of England would be the remains of the Villa (Palace ?) at Fishbourne near Chichester on the south coast (other researchers may want to correct me on this as I've not been there.)
For older bits you could try Stonehenge.
Which you can get to from Salisbury, another anchient Cathederal city, about an hour and a half from Waterloo.
The only problem is they wont let you walk right up to and amongst the stones.

Point well taken, I did say we brits had done a bit of remodelling!
but I just looked at an ordance survey map and the roads within the old city walls do seem to still have a basic grid layout,with a few kinks added later.
I think the saying was " The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English Road" or something to that effect.

Caistor, a small village in North Lincolnshire, where I live when I'm in England, was so named because it was a Roman camp ("castra") half way between Lincoln and York An aerial vie shows its grid sytem to this day. I agree that things have changed, but the pace therof is much slower outside the Home Counties. I think tourists should be encouraged to come north of Watford Gap

Hi Steve,

You might want to see the Roman palace (remains) at Fishbourne - It's quite impressive what they found

Tigger

Pimlico, in London, designed & built by Thomas Cubit (sp?), is definitely laid out on a grid


Tigger

you're right... G.K Chesterton, I think, definitely in a book called 'The flying Inn'

( ... rapidly scribbling notes for the next trip to England ...)

OK, for starters, I think I confused the issue a little ... my wife and I are interested in the Roman heritage in England, with no particular interest in the grid system of roads.

It sounds like Winchester is a great spot, albeit not Roman - "an hour from Waterloo". I am quite proud that I can understand that direction, have actually been in Waterloo Station, and can probably even follow the direction on the next visit. A couple of years ago, it would have sounded like Greek, or worse, cricket talk. And meant someplace across the Channel.

Roman - Fishbourne on the south coast. OK, a little vague, but Southampton (I think) is visible on the approach to London in the plane - that's the south coast, right? Can't be too far. Hopefully.

Now Caistor is a small village between Lincoln and York, and "north of the Watford Gap", and outside the "Home Counties". I am back to Greek. But always game to explore, it sounds like maybe several train rides?

mmm ... I'm a little concerned about the presentation I heard on the Millenium celebrations on TV - we got a lot from London, the Thames would not burn, we have rivers here in the US that probably will on any given day - about the UK wanting to appear "modern". Am I embarassing myself with all this history stuff? I might mention that I subscribe to a computer magazine from the UK, "Computer Music", and not cheap either - but VERY well done. (Spoken defensively, but truthfully)

- Steve K.