Exactly what I thought because your opinions on the same sound simplistic to say the least, I’m sorry.
You for instance tend to believe the system of street arrangement tells the whole story of urban planning with nothing to add or remove. You do not realize that the street arrangement system is just the beginning. You can have two cities, both grid system but one is a monotonous stretch of boring, poorly designed buildings with almost zero tree cover and not allowance for recreation while another is better planned with recreation facilities, pedestrian walkways, schools, markets, residential buildings, parks, artificial lakes et al.
A good example of a boring grid system is your Kariakoo. Monotonous ugly buildings with almost zero tree cover. Perfect example on how not to build a city.
A good example of a well planned grid system is Barcelona. The city is a darling of urban planners. Within each grid is a garden and fountains and schools were integrated within the system. Each grid was chamfered to create octagonal shapes for better movement of traffic. Traffic movement is well controlled. Interestingly, when Eng. Ildefons Cerdà came up with the idea, it wasn’t well received and people actually fought it. It’s only in modern times that it’s being highly appreciated and Barcelona is one of the go to cities when planners want to write about how to build a city which contradicts your logic that the grid system is boring and outdated. Barcelona is always praised as an urban planning success story.
Barcelona