TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Debunking the Cul-de-Sac

92 pointsby misnamedover 8 years ago

17 comments

cortesoftover 8 years ago
This article seems to totally gloss over the advantages of cul-de-sac and suburban living. Having just moved from the a more dense area of the city (after 10+ years) to a much more suburban area, I am keenly aware of the new perks I now have.<p>The first one is obviously space. Suburbs can have bigger houses and bigger yards. That is a very nice perk. I am not saying that bigger is always better, but you can&#x27;t just dismiss this as not being important at all. Having a backyard where I can BBQ and a garage I can park in are pretty nice.<p>Second, the article talks about the increased overall danger from traffic accidents in the city, but they don&#x27;t talk about actual accidents in the cul-de-sac itself. If you live in a cul-de-sac, your kids can play in the street much more safely than if you are in a city grid. Being able to play in the street is a nice thing.<p>Again, I don&#x27;t think that there isn&#x27;t a cost to suburban cul-de-sac living, I just feel this article completely ignores the actual benefits, instead focusing on a few parts that I don&#x27;t think people are actually claiming about the suburbs.
评论 #12536000 未加载
评论 #12535965 未加载
评论 #12536166 未加载
评论 #12537488 未加载
评论 #12535570 未加载
评论 #12535909 未加载
评论 #12535568 未加载
评论 #12535939 未加载
jnordwickover 8 years ago
Did I miss something? I don&#x27;t see anywhere where it &quot;debunks&quot; anything.<p>It has some talk about traffic accidents when you travel outside of a cul-de-sac, but doesn&#x27;t talk about the increased safety inside (especially for say children who play in the area), doesn&#x27;t talk about crime rates, or any of the reasons people move into suburban areas. It throws in some off the cuff comment about being more connected, but doesn&#x27;t say why that would be true in a more densely populated grid layout (as opposed to knowing your neighbor more in the the suburbs).<p>The article seems really poor actually, rushed to meet a deadline.
评论 #12535533 未加载
评论 #12535480 未加载
评论 #12535770 未加载
评论 #12535798 未加载
slikenover 8 years ago
I live in Davis CA (briefly) mentioned in the article and grew up in Pittsburgh PA. Pittsburgh PA placed in the top 10 worst cities to bike in, several times. The main problem is that the neighborhood streets don&#x27;t go anywhere, they just feed you onto busy streets with speed limits of 35 mph and up, with minimal shoulders.<p>So even for a 7.5 mile commute you end on up fairly dangerous roads for bikes. On the bridges you have to choose between really dangerous and legal (no shoulder at all, with a big railing between you and sidewalk), and illegally using the sidewalk.<p>Things like a local school, grocery store, drug store, and even a pizza joint are often pretty far away. You have to skip several useless neighborhoods on a major thoroughfare to be able to shop.<p>In davis there&#x27;s a large downtown section that&#x27;s largely a grid, low speed limits, bike lanes, and reasonable shoulders. The surrounding neighborhoods often have a green belt, and when they don&#x27;t there&#x27;s pretty much always a reasonable parallel road to any major through fair. There&#x27;s much more retail space mixed into the neighborhoods. There are schools, parks, drug stores, and restaurants spread around the city, not just downtown.<p>Pittsburgh does have a grid like downtown, but it&#x27;s pretty much exclusively a business district, very few people actually live there. It seems fairly post apocalyptic after hours with no cars and no foot traffic, just the rats scurrying around.<p>Seems like all the best cities have mixed use zoning, large grids, and highly connected streets. This allows for biking, walking, and of course better public transportation while minimizing high speed vehicles mixing it up with bikes and pedestrians.
评论 #12535971 未加载
arsover 8 years ago
Having lived in all different types of road patterns, the number once thing that increases safety is population density.<p>The lower the density, the safer, and the better for children. Everything is more pleasant, less noise, less wasted time, room for kids to play, less conflict with neighbors.<p>There&#x27;s more driving, but I don&#x27;t care, everything else is so much better it&#x27;s worth it. And don&#x27;t forget that even with the driving, everything takes less time.<p>So do it - design &quot;for cars&quot; if you want to call it that - you are really designing for the people <i>inside</i> the cars, and they will be much happier.<p>If that means a cul-de-sac (&quot;dead end&quot; as I&#x27;ve always called it) do it.
评论 #12535670 未加载
评论 #12535890 未加载
评论 #12561841 未加载
评论 #12535792 未加载
评论 #12535779 未加载
评论 #12535656 未加载
wongarsuover 8 years ago
The article somehow seems to conflate road layout with population density, peppered with some vague arguments in favour of high density building.<p>I agree that a lot of America&#x27;s traffic problems are related to their low-density suburbs, and there are many arguments why these suburbs are not all that great. But that is completely seperate from road layouts: you can build a cul-de-sac with high-density buildings, add a few footpaths and get basically all the advantages listed.
评论 #12536419 未加载
评论 #12538339 未加载
okintheoryover 8 years ago
I&#x27;m going to repost a comment from citylab page:<p>This piece is lying or deceptive, depending on your perspective. The Roman Empire may have built cities on grids, but most major European cities are generally not on grids, at least not in the sense of American cities. Just have a look at London, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome and many more. They are full little side streets that head off in unpredictable directions. They&#x27;re not full of Cul-de-sacs, though, as most streets are not dead ends. But, don&#x27;t pretend that the main alternative to cul-de-sacs is the American grid. Both are awful, compared to Paris! Without being an expert, I would guess that what makes European cities more enjoyable that American ones (they usually are!), is that they have many streets that are for pedestrians only - this makes for a much more enjoyable experience walking the city, and creates lots of wonderful spaces for restaurants and other venues to have outdoor seating.<p>- by wowsuchgoodpoint
评论 #12536021 未加载
评论 #12536129 未加载
lgunschover 8 years ago
I live in Edmonton, AB, and it somewhat follows a grid system. Although, a bunch of newer nieghborhoods have not continued to follow it. The roads all have numbers in a predictable pattern. This is very helpful for navigation, as just giving someone an address means they will probably be able to find it without consulting a map. Named streets automatically imply that I cannot find an address at all without a map. You can&#x27;t even find out which general direction would be correct.
评论 #12535580 未加载
评论 #12535554 未加载
评论 #12535497 未加载
agentgtover 8 years ago
In Massachusetts both in suburb and city we have almost complete chaos.<p>I&#x27;m almost sure we do no have the &quot;grid&quot; nor &quot;curvilinear&quot; nor &quot;cul-de-sac&quot; (my house is older than all of those designs by ~130 years). What we have is streets that follow natural features (e.g. the Charles River).<p>The irony is Massachusetts despite its urban legend of having horrible drivers is one of the safest states to drive in [1] (there are many more references).<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.autoblog.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;23&#x2F;traffic-accident-death-odds-by-state&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.autoblog.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;23&#x2F;traffic-accident-death-od...</a>
评论 #12535929 未加载
munificentover 8 years ago
The article claims cities should not be trees, but I don&#x27;t think grids are better. I&#x27;m a big fan of Christopher Alexander&#x27;s claim that successful cities are actually semilattices:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bp.ntu.edu.tw&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2011&#x2F;12&#x2F;06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bp.ntu.edu.tw&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2011&#x2F;12&#x2F;06-Alexa...</a>
jakewinsover 8 years ago
Highly recommend <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;</a> if you are interested in articles like this; still trying to explain to city councils over a hundred years after Ebenezer wrote &quot;To-Morrow&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Garden_city_movement" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Garden_city_movement</a>) why he was horrifically wrong.<p>If you want to dive deeper into this, Jane Jacobs&#x27;s &quot;Death and Life of the Great American Cities&quot; is an incredible and very approachable book on urban planning: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Death-Life-Great-American-Cities&#x2F;dp&#x2F;067974195X" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Death-Life-Great-American-Cities&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0...</a>
mberningover 8 years ago
My work life for the past few years has been a constant effort to not work downtown. I don&#x27;t want to live or work there. It is a miserable concrete hellscape. Dirty, unkempt, infested with beggars and other indigents. The concept of a legitimate grocery store is something that has not existed there for decades. This is all fine if you can survive off of craft beer, gourmet cupcakes, and takeaway for the rest of your life. But the city keeps making sweetheart tax deals for desirable employers. And I keep getting the news &quot;We are moving the office downtown! Isn&#x27;t that great!&quot;<p>It&#x27;s great for somebody, but not the average working stiff.
hkmurakamiover 8 years ago
I&#x27;ve noticed over the years that Palo Alto&#x27;s residential areas started with a grid system but moved towards a cul-de-sac by blocking off roads to cut off parts of the grid. The College Terrace area is particularly notable (likely because of its proximity to employment centers like Page Mill&#x27;s corporate campuses and Stanford University), and I seem to recall the Old Palo Alto area having some road blocks as well (particularly the area directly south of Palo Alto High School).<p>It definitely makes the quality of life better for the residents while making commuters &quot;pay more&quot; so to speak. I wonder when these road blocks (which are visually pleasing with trees and pedestrian and cyclist permeable) came to be.
rezashirazianover 8 years ago
When self driving cars take over, Get ready for the revival of suburbia.<p>Whatever progress migration toward densely populated urban areas has made in recent year (due to traffic and high gas prices) is going to rescind.
评论 #12536070 未加载
albertopover 8 years ago
Cul-de-Sac hase one enormous advantage - Google and Waze will not be able to send tons of traffic through your little street.
AstralStormover 8 years ago
Simple, if you put in a huge section of housing without services in walking or good mass transit distance, people will be forced to drive there. Thus negating advantages of the cul de sac while making the congestion much worse.<p>Fixing means a return to mixed developments, but you can still keep the cul de sac structure.<p>Another broken thing recently appearing is gated &quot;communities&quot; adding impassable terrain to the landscape.
enoch_rover 8 years ago
These things always devolve into a shouting match between the planners and people who value solitude or a big yard. I agree with the anti-density folks on one thing: big yards are awesome, larger houses are very useful, and I want my kids to feel safe on my street, and I find it hilarious that planners have so little humility--they curse the foolishness of the previous generation of planners, who overlooked some very important details, and then proceed to lay out <i>their</i> broad-brushed scheme for utopia. What could possibly go wrong?<p>But I&#x27;m convinced of the following: driving has huge costs that are not internalized as part of the decision-making process about whether to drive somewhere or not. E.g.:<p>- driving presents a large risk to pedestrians or bicyclists nearby<p>- driving requires a large amount of incredibly expensive infrastructure to be custom-built to support it<p>- driving down a street makes that street a less pleasant place to be, in general, due to noise, perceived risk, etc.<p>- driving causes congestion, which delays other drivers<p>- pollution and environmental costs<p>So if people actually paid the full cost of their trips, they&#x27;d probably drive less, and would be much less likely to plan their lives in ways that require large amounts of driving. For some people, the benefits would be worth the costs, and more power to them--but I shouldn&#x27;t have to subsidize that choice.<p>I wish the debate could be less about what type of lifestyle we prefer, and more about how to fairly distribute the costs of our choices.
评论 #12536639 未加载
bill_from_tampaover 8 years ago
The article did not discuss the advantages that my cat(s) obtain from not being crushed beneath the wheels of passing traffic on a more regular basis. [note to purists: &quot;our cats&quot; are kept strictly inside, but there are stray cats that we feed, and have survived for many years without auto crushing on a cul-de-sac].