
Debunking the Cul-de-Sac - misnamed
http://www.citylab.com/design/2011/09/street-grids/124/
======
cortesoft
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.

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'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.

Second, the article talks about the increased overall danger from traffic
accidents in the city, but they don'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.

Again, I don't think that there isn'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't think people are actually claiming about
the suburbs.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This has been a really common theme of city planning discussions on HN. A lot
of urban dwellers don't understand the appeal of suburban living, and would
rather brand it as "wrong" than accept that not every living situation is
there for their preferences.

~~~
mahyarm
A lot of us grew up in a suburban setting, and did not like it. We moved to an
urban setting for a reason.

~~~
criddell
I grew up in a small town and thought life there was pretty good until I moved
to a city for university. Once I got a taste of living in a city, I didn't
think I would ever return and couldn't understand why so many people live out
there.

Then I had kids and we moved to the suburbs and I like living here better than
any place I've lived before. Once self-driving cars are a thing, I'm buying
one and moving even further out of the city.

Interestingly, there's been a lot of office space being built around me. I
think companies that have a lot of suburban employees are moving to the
suburbs (including my employer).

~~~
dpark
> _I think companies that have a lot of suburban employees are moving to the
> suburbs (including my employer)._

Probably so. It's cheaper than urban office space, and they probably figure
everyone's driving anyway (which is pretty much guaranteed true after they
move to the suburbs).

------
jnordwick
Did I miss something? I don't see anywhere where it "debunks" anything.

It has some talk about traffic accidents when you travel outside of a cul-de-
sac, but doesn't talk about the increased safety inside (especially for say
children who play in the area), doesn'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'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).

The article seems really poor actually, rushed to meet a deadline.

~~~
jacobolus
Suburbs full of cul-de-sacs are terrible places to grow up for children after
the age of about 6. They’re invariably designed to be incredibly pedestrian-
hostile, and usually also bicycle-hostile, so if you don’t drive a car, you
either need to have your parents drive you everywhere, or you need to have
every possible destination within a couple blocks.

Such an environment is stifling of children’s independence and community
interaction.

~~~
joelmichael
When I was a kid I rode a bicycle.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I think the difference is, in a suburb a kid can safely ride a bicycle. That's
great, if your goal is to ride. If your goal is to _go to somewhere specific_
(movie theater? soccer game? swimming pool?), kid probably needs a ride in a
car, because those places aren't within biking distance for a kid.

------
sliken
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't go
anywhere, they just feed you onto busy streets with speed limits of 35 mph and
up, with minimal shoulders.

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.

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.

In davis there's a large downtown section that's largely a grid, low speed
limits, bike lanes, and reasonable shoulders. The surrounding neighborhoods
often have a green belt, and when they don't there's pretty much always a
reasonable parallel road to any major through fair. There's much more retail
space mixed into the neighborhoods. There are schools, parks, drug stores, and
restaurants spread around the city, not just downtown.

Pittsburgh does have a grid like downtown, but it'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.

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.

~~~
jimktrains2
Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are also heavily segregated by geography. You
really can't go more than maybe a mile being generous, ½mi more likely,
without hitting a major elevation change. Additionally, we're starting to add
better support for bikes; it's not super great, but it's getting a lot better
than even 5 years ago.

------
ars
Having lived in all different types of road patterns, the number once thing
that increases safety is population density.

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.

There's more driving, but I don't care, everything else is so much better it's
worth it. And don't forget that even with the driving, everything takes less
time.

So do it - design "for cars" if you want to call it that - you are really
designing for the people _inside_ the cars, and they will be much happier.

If that means a cul-de-sac ("dead end" as I've always called it) do it.

~~~
mjevans
We've seen experiments globally where highly planned developments, and even
'projects' fail.

However I am unaware of any experiments, natural or otherwise, with systemic
encouragement of desired development goals.

I see no environment in cities, suburbs, or rural areas where there is a
strong vision and drive towards building community.

~~~
alexbeloi
Seems like what you're describing is a planned community or also intentional
community. The latter being more of focused on the community part and the
former on the planning part. Washington DC is a planned community.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purpose-
built_national...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purpose-
built_national_capitals)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intentional_communitie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intentional_communities)

------
wongarsu
The article somehow seems to conflate road layout with population density,
peppered with some vague arguments in favour of high density building.

I agree that a lot of America'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.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
I got exactly the same impression. The cul-de-sac _per se_ isn't even
addressed. Taking it as symbolic, the article's main argument for grid layouts
seems to be little more than "everyone was doing it 100 years ago, and we
found a handful of favorable correlations, so they must have been on to
something".

------
okintheory
I'm going to repost a comment from citylab page:

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're not full of Cul-de-sacs, though, as most streets are not
dead ends. But, don'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.

\- by wowsuchgoodpoint

~~~
jakewins
The point isn't that streets are for pedestrians - the point is that the
streets are not single-purpose.

The street I lived on in Stockholm had a life cycle like:

\- 6am - early people head to work

\- 8am - kids head to school

\- 10am - parents with baby strollers pass by on their way to cafes

\- 11am - first people show up for lunch at the square

\- 12pm-2pm - bulk lunch traffic

\- 4pm - people start coming back home

\- 5pm - people going shopping down the street

\- 6pm - shops start closing, shop keepers fiddling with their things

\- 7pm - dinner guests start passing by on their way to the restaurants

\- 11pm - last restaurant guests start heading home

Compare that to the cul-de-sac I now live on in the US:

\- 6am - people start leaving, everyone drives

\- 10am - all cars are gone at this point

\- 5pm - people come home, all in cars

The difference here has nothing to do with grid or windy streets, it has to do
with mixed use buildings and streets built to be used for multiple purposes.

The effect is quite substantial: In the Stockholm neighborhood, I always felt
safe, always had neighbors going places on the street.

In my US neighborhood, the streets are almost always empty. No one has a
reason to come here for most of the day. This is why the local PD posts a
patrol car at our dead-end cul-de-sac every Saturday night, because otherwise
people come out here to smoke pot, since there's never anyone around

------
lgunsch
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't even find out which general
direction would be correct.

~~~
JoelBennett
Worse yet - go to Calgary where they've named all the roads in a given
neighborhood with the same name. E.g.: Eversyde Blvd, Eversyde Cir, Eversyde
Manor, Eversyde St. It's insanity.

(Lived in Edmonton, Calgary, and now Lethbridge. Always fun to see another
Albertan on here. :P )

~~~
rezashirazian
As a former Calgarian I feel obligated to provide an example of this:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Calgary,+AB,+Canada/@51.14...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Calgary,+AB,+Canada/@51.1429154,-114.241329,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x537170039f843fd5:0x266d3bb1b652b63a!8m2!3d51.0486151!4d-114.0708459)

------
agentgt
In Massachusetts both in suburb and city we have almost complete chaos.

I'm almost sure we do no have the "grid" nor "curvilinear" nor "cul-de-sac"
(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).

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).

[1]: [http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/23/traffic-accident-death-
od...](http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/23/traffic-accident-death-odds-by-
state/)

~~~
xkcd-sucks
It seems like many states are known for having the worst drivers, while none
are known for having the best

~~~
jessaustin
The states that have a distinctive "style" of driving, which isn't close to
the "average" national style, are known for having bad drivers, by visitors
who aren't yet comfortable with the local style.

------
munificent
The article claims cities should not be trees, but I don't think grids are
better. I'm a big fan of Christopher Alexander's claim that successful cities
are actually semilattices:

[http://www.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexa...](http://www.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf)

------
jakewins
Highly recommend [http://www.strongtowns.org/](http://www.strongtowns.org/) if
you are interested in articles like this; still trying to explain to city
councils over a hundred years after Ebenezer wrote "To-Morrow"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement))
why he was horrifically wrong.

If you want to dive deeper into this, Jane Jacobs's "Death and Life of the
Great American Cities" is an incredible and very approachable book on urban
planning: [https://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-
Cities/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-
Cities/dp/067974195X)

------
mberning
My work life for the past few years has been a constant effort to not work
downtown. I don'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 "We
are moving the office downtown! Isn't that great!"

It's great for somebody, but not the average working stiff.

------
hkmurakami
I've noticed over the years that Palo Alto'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'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).

It definitely makes the quality of life better for the residents while making
commuters "pay more" so to speak. I wonder when these road blocks (which are
visually pleasing with trees and pedestrian and cyclist permeable) came to be.

------
rezashirazian
When self driving cars take over, Get ready for the revival of suburbia.

Whatever progress migration toward densely populated urban areas has made in
recent year (due to traffic and high gas prices) is going to rescind.

~~~
criddell
I think you are right about that. Self-driving cars are going to lower the
cost of trips and car ownership and I think that can only lead to more trips
being made and cars being owned.

I can't wait to buy one.

~~~
bbcbasic
Why buy one? Just use Uber or similar.

~~~
criddell
Because they are going to be very affordable (eventually) and it's nice to be
able to leave stuff in your car. People already spend far more on cars than
they need to and that's not likely to change.

~~~
1812Overture
Why would they possibly be cheaper than current human operated cars?

~~~
criddell
The cars will be mechanically simpler (electric motor connected to wheels
without a traditional gearbox), require less maintenance (no oil changes), be
cheaper to insure, and inexpensive to operate. The electronics and software
will do what they always do - get better and less expensive. Lighter cars that
don't crash (often) can be made from different (cheaper) materials than
current cars. They will be similar to today's golf carts. I think a basic car
will cost less than $10,000.

A lot of the same innovations that go into producing a self-driving car apply
to the construction and repair of the car itself. One of the most expensive
parts of a new car is paying for wages, benefits, and pensions for the people
that made the car. I'm thinking self-driving cars will be built and serviced
by other machines. I would bet that before long, you buy a car the same way
you buy a cell phone. You subscribe to a plan and upgrade every 2-3 years.
Maybe you would subscribe to a shared fleet for $50 / month or maybe you "buy"
your own car for $250 / month.

This is all assuming a few years have passed and human driven cars are rare.

~~~
1812Overture
Car prices historically haven't done that. The typical inflation adjusted
price for a car is the same as it was 100 years ago, as automation and
technology improve manufacturers add features rather than lowering prices.
Current cars are almost entirely built by robots as it is, not much more gains
to be had there.

~~~
GFischer
"Car prices historically haven't done that. " ... in the United States.

Let's take a cheap car from the 1960s, an Austin Mini Cooper.

A 1960s Mini Cooper was about 500 pounds. That's 10.000 pounds in today's
money.

Today you can buy a Dacia Sandero for 6.000 pounds. That's almost half of a
Mini Cooper.

[http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2232885/Top-...](http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2232885/Top-5-cheapest-
brand-new-cars-buy-Britain.html)

~~~
1812Overture
Or you could get a Mini Cooper today for around 16.000 pounds. In the 1960s
you could get a Trabant for less than than the Mini too if you're comparing
English vs Romanian cars.

~~~
GFischer
The point I was trying to make is that "automation and technology" can lower
prices.

The current Mini is nothing like the old Mini, it has billions of features
more (exactly the point you were making in the original post I replied to).

I can't find any sources, but I strongly suspect that an inflation-adjusted
Trabant would be much more expensive than a Dacia Sandero.

Edit: I found some sources which confirm my hunch. A Trabant would be 11.000
pounds today if bought at East Germany prices, and 5.500 pounds if bought at
West Germany (subsidized) price. The same source says that the Mini destroyed
the Trabant market, they competed at similar price points.

A Maruti 800, which would be a much better comparison to the 60s Mini or
Trabant, should probably cost about 4000 pounds in the U.K.

Source for Trabant prices:

[http://heinkelscooter.blogspot.com.uy/2014/01/trabant-
east-g...](http://heinkelscooter.blogspot.com.uy/2014/01/trabant-east-german-
peoples-car.html)

------
albertop
Cul-de-Sac hase one enormous advantage - Google and Waze will not be able to
send tons of traffic through your little street.

------
AstralStorm
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.

Fixing means a return to mixed developments, but you can still keep the cul de
sac structure.

Another broken thing recently appearing is gated "communities" adding
impassable terrain to the landscape.

------
enoch_r
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 _their_ broad-brushed scheme for utopia. What could possibly go wrong?

But I'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.:

\- driving presents a large risk to pedestrians or bicyclists nearby

\- driving requires a large amount of incredibly expensive infrastructure to
be custom-built to support it

\- driving down a street makes that street a less pleasant place to be, in
general, due to noise, perceived risk, etc.

\- driving causes congestion, which delays other drivers

\- pollution and environmental costs

So if people actually paid the full cost of their trips, they'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't have to subsidize that choice.

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.

~~~
massysett
No one pays the full cost of their trips. Transit users are subsidized.
Pedestrians and cyclists are subsidized as they pay nothing at all for their
infrastructure. Plus, every "drivers are subsidized" argument ignores the fact
that drivers shoulder the entire capital and operating expense of their
vehicles--a cost borne entirely by governments for transit. Even transit
systems with high fare box recovery rates do not come close to paying even one
penny of _any_ of their capital expense, whether for guideways or for
vehicles.

~~~
jessaustin
_Pedestrians and cyclists are subsidized as they pay nothing at all for their
infrastructure._

Comparisons across many orders of magnitude are not insightful. Pedestrians
and cyclists can travel over unimproved ground, or gravel if they're being
picky. Any road that currently serves automobiles could serve the same number
of drivers as pedestrians and cyclists for centuries with no maintenance.

------
bill_from_tampa
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: "our cats" 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].

