As an American living in Hanoi, I constantly find myself trapped in a linguistic cage when describing my neighborhood. I tell people back home that I walk down “alleys” to get to my apartment. I do it because it’s the only word in the modern English vocabulary that signals a paved pathway too narrow for a car.

But I am lying every time I say it.

The small, narrow paths of Hanoi are not alleys. They are streets. And the fact that our standard urban planning vocabulary cannot tell the difference between a service corridor and a pedestrian thoroughfare reveals a massive blind spot in how we understand the city.

Subscribe now

What is an Alley, Really?

To understand why this terminology matters, we have to look at function. An alleyway is a very specific piece of urban anatomy. It is pure urban offal—the internal, purely utilitarian guts of a city block.

An alley exists entirely for service. It is the digestive tract of the block where trash is picked up, where deliveries are made, where the utility lines hide, and where employees can slip out the back door.

To be absolutely clear: this is not an anti-alleyway tirade. Alleys are brilliant, highly functional, and deeply useful urban assets. For those cities lucky enough to have been designed with them, they are wonderful. Savannah, Georgia—near where I grew up—has some of the best-designed, original alley systems in America. They were built generously to handle the heavy, unappealing, and messy labor of the city so that the primary front-facing streets could remain pristine, walkable, and beautiful. Even in contemporary developments, when I see planners integrate service alleys for modern utility management, I am always happy to see them. They keep our living environments clean and functional.

By definition, however, a true alley implies a strict spatial hierarchy:

1. The Front Side: Where public life, primary residential entrances, commerce, and architecture happen.

2. The Back Side (The Alley): Reserved strictly for metabolic support and utility.

But in Hanoi, there is no “back side” to these blocks. When you walk down a narrow ngõ (the Vietnamese word often mistranslated as alley), you are not walking down a service corridor. You are looking directly at the front doors of people’s homes. You are looking at storefronts, active living rooms, and localized commerce. It is a primary thoroughfare where the main acts of domestic and public life are performed.

In Hanoi’s narrow streets, there is no “back side.” The front door is the only door, and the street is the living room.

A Street Does Not Require a Car

The core of this issue is a form of collective historical amnesia: the modern world has mistakenly conflated “street” with “automobile conduit.”

Let’s hold firm to an undeniable historical truth: streets existed thousands of years before the internal combustion engine. A street is fundamentally a public thoroughfare designed for the movement of people and goods from an origin to a destination.

In Hanoi, these narrow corridors—some barely six feet wide, entirely inaccessible to cars and tightly negotiated by motorbikes and pedestrians—are true streets. They are the main conduits of traffic. They feed into wider main streets where people catch buses or cabs, allowing the entire urban system to absorb and move millions of people far more efficiently than any Western suburban grid ever could.

One of the primary reasons high-density cities work at all is because most people don’t drive—and these narrow streets are the vital capillaries that make that mass transit possible.

“A street is a public thoroughfare designed for the movement of human beings. The moment we decide a street must accommodate a multi-ton metal box to earn its title, we surrender our cities to the machine.”

The Corporate “Pedestrian Street” Gimmick

When you look up modern planning definitions of “pedestrian streets,” the car-centric bias becomes even more aggravating. Online dictionaries and planning blogs routinely conflate “pedestrian street” with leisure and consumption. They describe pedestrian zones as stationary places meant exclusively for lingering, shopping, and aesthetic enjoyment.

This is a complete bastardization of urban form. It treats pedestrianization as a gimmick—a fun, consumerist lark designed to look pretty for tourists and shoppers on a weekend afternoon.

But a real pedestrian street isn’t just a manicured plaza lined with high-end boutiques and matching patio umbrellas. A real pedestrian street serves a vital, unglamorous transportation function. Sure, you can walk down it leisurely, or stop for a coffee along the way, but its primary job is utility: getting people from point A to point B.

The Aesthetics of Function

This brings us back to the concept of Urban Offal. The reason these vibrant, functional narrow streets get mislabeled as “alleys” or ignored by Western definitions of “pedestrian zones” is simple: they don’t always look pretty. We have been conditioned by glossy architectural magazines to think that human-scale spaces must look like manicured European plazas. But a functioning city requires grit. Hanoi’s narrow streets are messy, tangled with overhead wires, buzzing with motorbikes, and constantly shifting between public commerce and private domestic life.

They aren’t built to impress tourists or look pristine in a real estate brochure. They are built to work.

When we mistake a primary, low-car thoroughfare for an “alley,” we diminish its status. We act as though the absence of cars makes a street lesser-than, or relegated to a mere back-of-house utility.

If we want to design better cities for the future, we have to stop designing vehicles and then forcing our cities to fit them; we must design our vehicles to fit our cities. And that starts with recognizing that a six-foot-wide path of cracked concrete can be a truer, more vital street than a six-lane highway.

Share Built and Human