The suburbs, first conceived as the “Garden Cities” of the future, are now being seen as the regressive by-product of the progressive pursuit for open space. Ironically, the conventional perception of the irongird, of the prewar city, is one where form is restrictive and confining, while the postwar city is thought to be an expansive matrix and could be characterised as the “open city”. Curiously, the prewar city was conceived on a centrifugal grid, a road system in which the basic premise was an open spatial field that was boundless and unlimiting in form. The postwar city was conceived on a centripetal grid, a road system that was limited in form, creating enclosed spaces that were broken up and unconnected.

The lack of a gird in these new developments is thought to create an open and rational access for traveling. Instead, the street planning is anything but rational since many of these developments are structured after the original concept of the “Garden City” transplanted from England. The “Garden City” would differ from the crowded industrial city, by retaining a low density residential population, including parks at the centre and periphery of each community. Furthermore, that the urban development would be determined by the natural terrain of the landscape, thereby creating an “open” network of streets. However, present day communities essentially turn in on themselves and navigating through any of them can be confusing and frustrating because one pattern is entirely different from another.