all 71 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 69 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think it was a US uni campus, that redid the lawn and didn't put down any walking paths and waited for the desire paths to form and then paved those

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I was coming here to say that! It's possibly apocryphal, but the way I heard it was that the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign did this when they did their main quad (I still remember them telling me this when I got a tour before applying there 30 years ago). And they didn't just look for where the plants were dead, but they also looked for broadleaf weeds, which sustain trampling better than grasses (it's a land grant university in the midwest. Of course there's an agriculture angle).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Proof mankind in it's natural state is truly irredeemable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 121 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    But why is it human nature to put a bench right where people are walking. It's like people in charge get off on creating obstacles for the common man just to feel powerful.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why is it human nature to not follow directions and pay attention better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -65 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    People weren't supposed to create that shortcut in the first place, thus disrespecting the park.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago

    The park design should have accounted for the crosswalk on the top intersection from the get go or, alternatively, once the people made their desire for a path there obvious. The park isn't some sentient thing with its own opinion, it got made by people with 2 main functions: enhancing the environment and serving as a foot path. It is obviously failing at the second until the designers finally relented and put a proper path down to the crosswalk.

    Note: you will always get people not using the path but when it's enough people to form a permanent trail then the park design obviously did not account for a rather popular destination and should be revised.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago

    This specific case would be super predictable, notice how the desire path becomes wider at the end. Pedestrian path should always do that because that's how people walk.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I love how the third and second to last panel are the same, as if nature paused briefly before it decided to open another path.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I wonder if the experience of 'shortcut' is part of the motivation, so that as soon as you've established a path, what constitutes 'shortcut' also changes. I'd be interested to know if curved paths were more desire path-resistant, because they appeal to an intuition about adjusting (and therefore optimizing) course.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    seems to me its the entire motivation. but whether the shortcuts have impact on the grass depends on how popular they are. people shortcut randomly all the time but it only makes a desire path when a large number of them go the same way regularly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Note that my (implied) emphasis is on experience. If the experience is what is important, convenience isn't actually what creates desire paths. Instead it's the experience of making a personal choice to increase efficiency, of joining a club of renegades who brave the path less traveled, etc.... So maybe allowing for that experience in the managed environment is another way of limiting desire paths.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I love how almost every comment talks as if the pedestrians were the problem, and not designers.

    Just made the footpath in box 2 the actual path, and slap additional stuff anywhere not-on-top-of-where-peiople-walk.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    The Internet is populated by people who think English grammar is cosmic law, so it doesn't surprise me that they think you should bend over for dogshit urban planning.

    Ironically, none of them follow the rule of shutting up if they don't know shit about shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I like how upset people are in the comments. Even has random ass comments about capitalism. This is great lol

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Isn't that normal on lemmy? It's also fully expected to see some comments about Israel under every post no matter how unrelated it is. People made fun of political obsession on reddit, but to me lemmy has always felt much worse in this regard

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    To everybody acting like the desire path is the problem:

    1. If the problem for you is that it's 'bad' or 'illegal', grow a spine so that when you need to break the law, for something that matters, you can do it with dry pants.
    2. If the design doesn't take into account how people will interact with it, it's bad and lazy. Only time it would be acceptable to 'force' a way to interact with something is when there are safety concerns, and there are none here.
    3. You are traped in a cage of your own making, break free or perish like the dog you are.
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Seriously. The rabidly boot licking deference obedience and weird conflation if the constructed with the natural/universal is like the worst thing we get from the mostly-christian (anti)intellectual tradition.

    These people are not fit to be adults in a built environment. Their states if mind should not be allowed in a world with such feats of artifice as concrete and movable type.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ok being real dude, I don't think this behavior is a product of "mostly-christian (anti)intellectual tradition," it's just the type of people who never grew out of the color-in-the-lines and follow-your-line-buddy stuff from grade school. I don't think there's any spectacular political statement to be made here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not that I have a particular problem with desire paths, but what's shown in the comic here is an example of how the design changed to take into account how people are interacting with it, and yet it didn't work out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    The only time where the design actually changed, the designer made the point of moving the path away from whhere the desire path was pointing.

    That comic captures it so incredibly well. It's almost perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It didn't work out because the design didn't change, it was reinforced. Each attempt failed because there was no actual effort to understand why it's not working. Like wraping a leaky rusted pipe in ducktape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Um. You did notice panel 10 - 12, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes? The new path is there because it's still shorter, people don't walk in straight lines and sharp angles. That design is still lazy and not thought out

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    I mean what is a "thought out" path, besides just saying fuck it and paving whole plot. I mean maybe a funnel or something, but again kind of seems likely that we'd wind up with more desire paths forming just differently, maybe people coming from different starting points etc...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, that person you replied to missed the point entirely, and all the people who up-voted them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh. What is the point then? /gen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    For me, it was heavy on the "you can't please everyone" aspect. You try and try, first at enforcing the solution you thought was best, but people have their own problems and their own agenda. Then you try to accommodate that. But you'll find that there's always someone whom you can't please.

    That was my personal take-away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    My brain is so Death Stranding-coded right now that I tried to give the path a bunch of likes πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

  • source
  • This comment section is surprisingly spicy

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You say this is human nature, but I see the comments section filled with good little doggies that follow master's rules.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yet desire paths will always happen regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    In the comic, the desire path happened because they wouldn't just connect to the crosswalk. Even in the end, the constructed path connects to the sidewalk slightly to the side instead of going straight to the crosswalk.

    Desire paths happen because of poor, antihuman design choices.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "desire paths" well and good, but who (above the age of 15) is jumping a hedge to save 3 second walk time? Must be next to a school.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    I'm more concerned about the city planner who was so strongly against the idea that the path should be coming right out of that crosswalk. That's just insulting, like they WANT everyone to waste just 3 more seconds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm 50 and in great shape. I'm squeezing between fences and leaping small barricades on my walk to get bananas at grocery. Walk life is so different than eating-while-sitting-and-driving-but-still-somehow-sweating life of cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Sometimes it is just carelessness of the people. Being blind to your fellow people's needs. Dropping trash where they stand. Refusing to walk two extra steps on the pathway and kill the grass instead.

    In this case the requirements analysis of the parks and recreations dept was just bad and they are the asshole.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem is a lack of "Beware of Grass Ticks" signs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Gradient descent - human version

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's just a few extra steps, you lazy fuckers!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -50 points 1 year ago

    Human nature to fuck nice shit up. This is why I don't cater.

  • source