David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:

>
> It's not particularly useful in some US cities as a comparison either.
> Philadelphia blocks are at least twice the length of NYC blocks, and
> many cities (e.g. Boston and Cambridge) don't have grid layouts (or not
> much of them.)
>
How long are Philadelphia blocks? The ones in NYC are approx. a tenth
of a mile crossways, and a twentieth of a mile north/south.

S Viemeister <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
>
> >
> > It's not particularly useful in some US cities as a comparison either.
> > Philadelphia blocks are at least twice the length of NYC blocks, and
> > many cities (e.g. Boston and Cambridge) don't have grid layouts (or not
> > much of them.)
> >
> How long are Philadelphia blocks? The ones in NYC are approx. a tenth
> of a mile crossways, and a twentieth of a mile north/south.

I think the numbered streets are about twice that of the ones in NYC, so
closer to the avenues. It was initially hard to judge how long it would
take to get from 50th to 70th in NYC, compared to say 10th and 30th in
Philadelphia.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> :

>
>
>Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-17, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>And 6-8 blocks in London could be 100 ft. In San Francisco, that's 2-3
>>>miles.
>>
>>
>> "Blocks" is a meaningless metric to Europeans. Even miles or furlongs are
>> better, though naturally km is preferred (except by the British, which is
>> relevant for London).
>
>In most places blocks are long rectangles rather than squares.

Except in London where they're often triangles or other oddly proportioned
heptagons, pentagons .... etc
--
Tim C.