Post-war suburbs are the same everywhere: wide arterials with strip commercial, connecting suburban subdivisions to freeways along old rural highways. The biggest difference is whether the Public Lands Survey System was used or not.
Anywhere the PLSS was used, you tend to get streets that follow section lines, and hence square grids.
Everywhere east of the Appalachians lacks it. And so in those areas, the grid defaults to triangle, following the rural roads between towns, mills, bridges, and forts. For example, in Raleigh, there is a 'Durham Road' going to Durham. In Durham, it becomes 'Raleigh Road', and midway, it's 'Duraleigh Road'.
Look at a map of anywhere in the South, and you can see the constant tessellation of triangles between each triplet of towns. It's an emergent pattern - people follow the roads, and roads emerge where wagons can travel--paths that are the most energy-efficient for a heavy load, even if it's not the most direct. It's a pattern that can be seen over and over in urbanization - you can see it in London, in Paris, etc. For major towns, the roads forming the tip of the triangle will converge a way out (no need to maintain three closely spaced roads). Regardless, those triangles of rural roads became rural highways, which are urbanized as major arterials. If they don't have enough traffic, they get classes as minor arterials or even collectors.
But whatever polygon makes up the grid of an urban area, the pattern remains: highways emerge, traffic is funneled to a limited number of paths, commercial springs up along high-traffic paths, and residential happens anywhere with decent job access that commercial or industrial users haven't already claimed.
It's a demand pattern that affects even places that started with square grids, and why when major transportation investments (railways, freeways) get planned and major investments made, it doesn't tend to follow the grid--it responds more to transportation demand than to administrative costs.