End of the Road for the Cul-de-sac
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04. 4.08
Lucas Oleniuk, the Star
Peter Gorrie of the Star makes some interesting points about cul-de-sacs. Owners love them; Gorrie describes one family: "The Bennetts love their enclave. It's quiet and friendly;a safe place for not only road hockey but also learning to ride a bike or sled down a mound of snow in the centre of the turning circle. Their parents all know each other; visit while their kids play, watch each other's homes and sometimes sip wine together on a Friday evening."
He also teaches us the the derivation of the term: "Cul-de-sac began as an old French hunting term: It translates, literally, as "bottom of the bag "– where snared rabbits were shoved, face down, to keep in the dark and restrict their motion."
Owners may love them but planners and environmentalists don't; Gorrie writes:
"Cul-de-sacs consume vast amounts of land.
They create car-dependent zones whose inhabitants spew four times as many greenhouse gas emissions as downtown dwellers. All that driving creates traffic congestion as all those vehicles pour on to a limited number of collector roads.
Since residents spend so much time behind the wheel, abdominal spare tires quickly replace six-packs. A widely quoted American study concluded that people on cul-de-sacs weigh nearly three kilograms more than those in traditional grid neighbourhoods of straight streets and right-angle intersections.
Isolated and insular, they become cesspools of self-absorption and pettiness that turn their backs on the wider world. "People who live in a cul-de-sac are out of touch with the rest of their community and most likely do not know much about the folks who live behind the fences of their blocked-off streets," complains a recent report from the American Planning Association.
They inspire crime: A British study says the burglary rate is 30 per cent higher."
Wow. That's a lot of evil for a road pattern, I had better tell my mother-in-law to move, pronto. More at ::The Star
Oh --- and here I thought it was the poorly planned winding collector roads, without sidewalks, that contributed to these problems.
Grids can be just as bad in many ways. A grid with alleys maximizes the amount of land that is paved. Streets in a grid need major traffic calming including traffic diversion before they become good places to travel. If the grid allows though access for motor vehicles, there is no advantage to cycling or walking.
The fused is road pattern that combines the best of the grid and cul-du-sacs, It essential consists of a grid for cyclists and pedestrians and cul-du-sacs for automobiles. This makes it quicker and easier to cycle and walk. By using less space for streets and alleys, more space is left for parks and public space.
More info at:
http://www.fusedgrid.ca/
is this an April Fool's Day joke? Now treehuggers are combatting cul-de-sacs? What's next: Driveways? (destroy precious non-indigenous grass lawns!) Sidewalks? (Inhibit important tree root growth!) Asphalt? (Encourages mall development) Yellow street markings? (Loss of driver's civil rights).
This is one of those things where environmentalists go way TOO far out of their realm. Everything in modern life can be a culprit of environmental doom it seems - the more dramatic the better!
Start small, dude. You won't be able to stop the cul-de-sac phenomenon any time soon. Try working on something that Americans can actually get behind you on...
With cul-de-sacs motorists need to drive twice as far to get where you're going, and often these huge neighborhoods are connected by one main bottlenecked traffic hell. The fused method is nice for traffic calming and ped/cycle use for sure. I still prefer the grid method, maybe with chicane-type traffic slowing and lots of cycle & ped paths.
I have lived in a cul-de-sac most of my life and I love it. In our neighborhood, most of the forest is preserved between houses and other cul-de-sac's in such a way as I consider it a "commons" forest for kids to play in and explore. This also is a habitat for wildlife looking for places to live as more open forest land has been cut down. They are now starting to install sidewalks which is creating some foot traffic and we always see joggers, strollers and bikers cruising along the lightly congested roads around us. I primarily use my trike as my primary form of transit and there are a few others in the neighborhood that also are utility bikers.
It is not the design, it is the automobile mindset that is the problem.
I find some of the comments in this article over-reaching and off base. I live on a cul-de-sac, so I'm a little biased. And as an architect I am opposed to irresponsible development as much as anyone, if not more so. But, I have to say my community (built in the late 70's and nothing like the McMansion development we see all around us) is far from a "cesspool of self-absorption and pettiness that turn their backs on the wider world." I strongly disagree with this assertion. One of the local elementary schools in our area recently gained its accreditation back after losing it. There are many apartment developments in our area. And the transient nature of the residents lead to very poor student performance results on average. One of the reasons the school got back on track? People in my cul-de-sac neighborhood opted not to use the vouchers granted to them. They opted to take the risk of placing their kids in the school, so that the community as a whole would feel the benefit.
I own a house in a cul de sac (it wasn't something I was specifically looking for, but it was a good deal and has lots of trees).
I actually see cul de sacs as having the *potential* to be incredibly bike and pedestrian friendly, *if* planners decide to make them that way by putting bike paths and walkways at the end of cul de sacs, creating a pedestrian network where cars can't go. This happens in a few places in my neighbourhood, but not nearly enough.
When I'm walking or on my bike, I'm much happier walking through residential neighbourhoods while the cars have to go around.
This kind of crap is embarrassing. Its really hard to embrace the message when baseless pseudo-information is used to support it.
"A widely quoted American study concluded that people on cul-de-sacs weigh nearly three kilograms more than those in traditional grid neighbourhoods of straight streets and right-angle intersections." Which study? Who conducted it? Did they compare neighborhoods of similarly aged homes, relative wealth of owners, parity in location, ...? Oh, wait that wouldn't be newsworthy.
Or this: "Isolated and insular, they become cesspools of self-absorption and pettiness that turn their backs on the wider world." So now the American Planning Association (or whatever it was) is engaged in mental health assessment and the widespread detailed surveying required to support that assumption?
There has to be a point where anyone who has a stake in promoting the concepts and ideals that underly environmental and social responsibility should be mindful of engaging in disinformation.
Paths at the end of cul-du-sacs do make them better for cyclists and pedestrians. The problem is that often it is hard to navigate through a subdivision with cul-du-sacs. The fused grid, with cul-du-sacs combines the best of both worlds.
Regarding the gird, it is not great really for anyone. The amount of traffic calming required to make the streets people friendly will essentially turn a grid into a fused grid. This is essentially what Vancouver did in the West End, transforming it from a neighbourhood full of rat running commuters to one of the most pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods in North America. As a result, almost 30% of people who live in downtown Vancouver walk to work.
The City of Vancouver has invested millions of dollars in traffic calming to try and make the grid cycling friendly through speed bumps, traffic circles and bulges. The only traffic calming that works is traffic diversion and street closures. By the time all this is done, again, it would be essentially a fused grid.
This thing about cul-de-sacs is pretty absurd. way overboard. how can this make the normally good treehugger blog?
6 pounds overweight? are you serious?
I think we've found the "cesspool of self-absorbtion" ... in the community of planners that spew this venomous bull-wash.
People who live on these things love them. And, when you ask why, the themes of community and trust with their neighbors, and reduced traffic impacts are uniform. The bee-in-the-bonnet those in the planning community have about them and the utilitarian ranch houses that go with them are CLASS BIAS, pure and siimple.
Put nice wide sidewalks on your connectors like somebody above said, and call us when you see the results.
Suppose I wrote andarticle proposing a housing model based on orienting small co-housing communities of economical family homes around short, low speed, ped and bike priority lanes dead-ending in shared plazas connected to individual patios. Oops! Oh, wait! They've been building them for years without the permission or blessing of "the planning community"! Better stop that before those hefty consulting fees those planners live on go down the drain completely!!!!
A few points.
The study is not about cul-de-sacs specifically, but about the ENTIRE concept of neighborhoods which are designed this way. They are twisted, clogged, winding, and nothing is within convenient walking distance due to the total lack of straight lines.
To make it worse, most older neighborhoods of this type do not have alleys that connect streets. You could be 100 feet from your destination, but still have to walk half a mile around just to get there, because there's no connection for pedestrians or bicyclists. This REALLY discourages foot traffic.
This topic seems rather relevant, on the whole, despite it's superficiality at first glance. It's not about that little circle at the end of the road, it's about a design philosophy that took root in the 1950's, and has persisted, without improvement or redesign, through the present.
Yet another excellent example of how the "American Dream" (the land, the house, the car, the wife, the dog, and 3.5 kids, in the suburbs) is not actually a desireable (or feasible) future.
Cul de sacs are a real problem for the community as a whole. Folks who live on them generally like them very much.
The problem comes from lack of connectivity overall, which leads to more arterial roads with higher traffic volumes, greater travel distances for everyone, more road maintenance costs, longer response times for ambulances and the fire departtment, more lost people trying to find their destinations...
A properly designed and constructed road network contains a hierarchy of streets that naturally places most on the traffic on the major arterials and keeps most of the residential uses and parklands on lower capacity roads.
Well designed, the roads will naturally limit travel speeds to those appropriate to the neighborhood and reduce any speeding and danger to people out in the streets.
You can get a lot of the benefits of a cul de sac with other layouts, such as circles, crescents, one way systems, etc., so that traffic does not seek short cuts through quieter districts.
How is cul-de-sac being defined here?
As I know it, only the houses around the circle(the actual cul-de-sac) are cul-de-sac houses.
But, the article makes it seem like the culprit is isolated, suburban housing developments, which happen to have cul-de-sacs in them, not the cul-de-sacs themselves.
For example, in the picture above the cul-de-sacs have about 6-7 homes around them. Is it these 6-7 houses that contain the, and I'm paraphrasing here, "fat, ignorant, and myopic" citizenry? Or, is it that whole neighborhood?
The New Scientist suggests that cul-de-sacs encourage recycling:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13595-deadend-streets-encourage-recycling.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
I think the car is the problem, not the short road.
The Star article does dispute the Crime Claim. Criminals love car-accessible, low scrutiny neighborhoods. Properly designed cul-de-sacs are the opposites of this.
In terms of livability for families, I have lived in both layouts, and the Cul-de-sac was more safe and fun for kids, and we had no trouble getting to the bus or walking to the corner-store.
This article may have presented the topic in a poor way, but it still deserves attention on the treehugger site. I have been trained in architecture, so I have had study regarding these and other forms of planning in urban design classes.
The kind of housing developments that contain cul-de-sacs are the main issue, not just the cul-de-sac. These sprawling (typically cookie-cutter housing) developments started with Levittown and quickly became the model for suburbia. These types of developments rely extensively on the automobile, making it difficult to conduct life without one.
The popularity of these developments (combined with the increase of importance of the automobile and the construction of the interstate highway system) led to the long decline of the traditional town center. The town center, conversely, is considered by most urban planners to be a good model, for a number of reasons. Uses are mixed, so that inhabitants are close to places which they may visit on a daily basis. For instance, on the corner of blocks are shops, so that people living on that block can visit on foot. Streets are in a grid, which minimizes the amount of streets (and thus impervious surface) per amount of developed land. (note that this may have DENSER roads, but LESS per person because every thing is more compact, so less roads on the planet). Density is of course important to sustainability, as it allows people to share resources, reduce transportation costs and energy use. On the human side, grids allow for more interaction of people (though this may be less focused...in a cul-de-sac you may know your immediate neighbors well, but you do not walk past others on the street or see them in the corner shop often as you may in a gridded town center).
Architects and planners have tried to come up with better ways to address these issues. A few interesting examples you may want to look into include:
-Radburn, NJ which tried to separate automobile traffic from pedestrian paths, making these paths an important social connector within the neighborhood.
-Letchworth which was a realized version of the idealized Garden City Movement. Garden cities tried to fuse rural with urban in a self-sustaining town region.
-The Neighborhood Unit developed by Clarence Perry suggests that a successful neighborhood could be formed around a few key features. These include an elementary school, small parks and playground, local shops, and residential environment all in close proximity.
There is a decades long conversation on how to improve people's lives (physically, psychologically, ecologically, and economically) through planning , one which often points to the problems created by the automobile. Cul-de-sac developments were an extension of the automobile's increasing prominence in the 20th century, but have clearly created an burden on the environment by necessitating more use of the car, forcing more infrastructure to be built, and taking up more land.
Cul-de-sacs are one element in this larger picture, but they represent what I have described above. There are problems here. The privacy and safety that these neighborhoods afford (i.e. the positive features that residents like about them) can be met in another planning design that does not consume the resources of a typical suburban development or necessitate waste through increased automobile use. There are other ways to design the positive features into neighborhoods that have less negatives.
If you know an architect, design professional, or planner, I suggest you start a conversation on this topic to gain a more informed opinion and insight into this issue in both an environmental and design standpoint.
I have an idea.
Let's stop this Stalinist micromanaging of people's lives.
Let people live they way they please.
You can't get very far (development wise) with grids or suburbs. The best sort of development is unorganized urban development, such as that in Boston's North End. Building density should be very high (though the buildings themselves should not be overcrowded), and streets should be frequent but pedestrian-focused and lined with local shops and small businesses. Parks should be small and used sparingly--large parks may look green, but the amount of city they displace means that more people have to live further away from downtown, contributing to sprawl. Sidewalks should be wide and crossings frequent, cutting into and frustrating traffic. The safest road for a pedestrian isn't a low-traffic road (drivers tend to speed due to lack of other cars), but a road which is difficult and frustrating to drive in. Drivers will, if given the choice, avoid that road, and those who do are forced to drive slowly and carefully to deal with the constant pedestrian crossings. In such a neighborhood, everything is within walking or biking distance, and people can walk freely on streets and in alleys. Also, the compact nature of the area means that it can be well-served by public transportation.
This sort of development is possible outside of cities as well. An ideal small town is almost as compact as the above description, and should be located on or near a major railway connecting it to other towns or a nearby city. This way, people can walk freely about the town, traffic is hampered, space is conserved, etc. Furthermore, a compact town maximizes green space by keeping it outside the range of development. If the core is sufficiently compact, then walking out into the countryside becomes just as easy as walking into the town center. For the same reason, parks are even less necessary--the abundance of surrounding greenery is more than enough.
I know that firemen, police and ambulance drivers prefer straight streets which
go thru, and they sometimes waste time mistakenly
getting into a cul-de-sac. I'd like to live on one
because of the no traffic racing through and
that nice turn-around space out front ( if I had to
live in ithe city, which I don't ! )
Behind all of the crap in this post there is a little bit of truth. Let's see a rewrite.
### Evening in the life of a Cul-du-Sac suburban ###
4:20 pm
*Jon stops by my desk*
"Hey Gary, wan't to grab a pint with the guys after? We are heading to.."
"Sorry Jon! I have to take Jimmy to T-ball tonight"
4:40 pm
I watch for the boss and make sure he has left early (he always does) so I can make my escape from the office. Hopefully, I can beat the rush out of the parking garage and make a dash for the highway before it gets too jammed up.
4:50 pm
Off I go.. Drat. Already a lineup to get out of the underground. Patience.. Patience.. Okay, out we go! But wait.. what the *@#*# is that Taxi cab doing parked there. Doesn't he know I'M tying to get home?!
*looks over at a passing cyclist* I wonder what hes so smug about. It's not like he has AC. *grumble*
5:02 pm
Finally on the highway. Things are moving, kinda... ahh.. lets listen to something soothing. Jazz FM. Yeah, that would hit the spo.. "Hey A-hole!! why don't you watch where you are going"... man, those cabbies today.
5:03 pm
Ahh... traffic is flowing... *moment of bliss*
5:28 pm
Oh what now... are those flashing lights up ahead? I hope its just a fender bender.. Comon'! I have to take Jimmy to his T-ball practice in 30 mins!
5:31 pm
Traffic and Weather Together! Yay!
*hiss crackle*
"Traffic is at a grind out of the core.."
Tell me something I don't know..
"The weather is looking spectacular this afternoon and into the evening... but we are looking at rain for the weekend"
5:36 pm
I can't believe the accident wasn't even on this side of the highway! RUBBERNECKERS! Gah. I didn't even see any blood or bodies. Now I'm going to be late. I had better call Suzy to make sure she can take Jimmy to practice.
6:01 pm
Oh man, i'm down to a quarter tank.. oh well.. I will fill up tomorrow. There's no way I'm putting in 100 liters at 111.4 cents. The government should really do something about these outrageous gas prices. Thank goodness I have a huge tank in this thing and can wait until the price goes down!
6:15 pm
Ahh.. home.. finally.. Well I had better start dinner up since Susy and Jimmy are out. I'm exhausted and I bet It's going to be an early night for me. If only I didn't have to mow the lawn... Oh well, I will have to do it over the weekend I guess.
(this comment was written with truth - I used to live in the burbs)
i must say, i live in a cul de sac, and i think i'm offended by this article
i mean, im not some fatty recluse, and i spend just as much time in cars as anyone else who DOESNT live in a cul-de-sac. on that point, i think the problem is suburbs in general, not just cul de sacs, but then again suburbs allow for lawns and trees, so it's all a balance
this article just seemed WAY to angry and agains...cul de sacs...which was quite strange
Yeah this is a bit much, some people just prefer a little privacy, Every road doesn't need to be a through way, that just encourages more driving.
-s
wow.... im all for creating a healthier environment but damn sometimes people go too far. yes as consumers there are things we should change but to go as far as to say are neighborhoods are making the air or whatever worse? come on now... lets just try to get recycling down
I used to live in a cul-de-sac. The house I was in was 250 meters walk to the train station, which was fine until my job was outsourced to India. It was a 1.75 mile corkscrew of a drive to get to that same intersection as the train station, so I could commute by car to a job that wasn't outsourced.
If my job didn't go to Bangalore, I'd still be walking and taking the train and the cul-de-sac would be the greenest option for me.
So the cul-de-sac story can be complex.
Why don't developers build small parks that benefit the entire neighborhood and inspire a sense of community instead of the cul-de-sac that inspires cliques.
I will go live under a bridge before I'll live in one of these antiseptic, pre-packaged new towns that the planners are so hot for. I think we need to move the cheese on these technocrat planners. Base their financial rewards on the satisfaction of the users in some way. Right now, it is all rewarded through the academic-elite consulting system. So, the biggest rewards go to the most successful at publishing in the journals, and hogging from the public trough. It is Stalinism in the worst and purest form found in the west.
Then you take a look at where the top rung planner/architect technocrats live themselves. In my experience, they are out in the Chapaquas, the Lake Oswegos, etc, etc. They are not living in these Truman Show like new towns or urban mega-high rises. They want light and air and trees and all the same things everybody else does. They just want to force the rest of us into what they think is good for us. They won't stoop to living there themselves.
The current crop of these technocrats needs to be retrained into a useful profession, like plumbing, and never allowed to influence public policy ever again.
it's very difficult to say whether the entry has gone too far in saying the cul-de-sac is non-environmental friendly. There are over-reaching quotations of research studies, but the reasoning behind it is sound as cul-de-sacs shut off the outside world and creates an absolute private area of enclave which should have been shared by the community. And such inefficient allocation of private space contributes partly to the sprawling problem. People observe joyous biking and kids playing in a cul-de-sac, but wouldnt it be better if there's no road at all but all lawn? the very problem comes from its encouraging omnipresent automobile consumption.
For people who think recycling is the only practical solution to our suburban problems I suggest reading Cradle-to-cradle. Recycling can help so little, compared to innately more intelligent design.
I'm interested to know the opinions among non-cul-de-sac residents/owners. It seems that most of the negative comments on this post were contributed by suburban owners whom the very post is suggesting against, as usual.
Of course developers don't like them - there is more land around the houses and less houses to sell for a given surface of land. I'm sure owners will protest to having more land and green around their houses and less car traffic!
These problem are often CAUSED by zoning.
I say get rid of zoning and let a city evolve into what is needed. We might even be able to walk to work someday.
You can still have deed restrictions. I am tired of control freaks telling people what they can or can't do with their land.
Grig - What are you thinking by saying that developers don't like them because of density?
hardly! they LOVE THEM.
and why?
Because they can buy the land for next to nothing (was farm land or forest) and they are usually given incentives to develop by the municipalities (they love land tax). The land itself is totally terraformed and flattened out (easier to catchment / drainage when you have no landscape to speak of), any creeks are usually put through a culvert (underground in a lot of cases). It's easy stuff and usually VERY cost effective.
They still pack them in like sardines (have you seen modern developments?) and still charge a bloody fortune for them! Plus, it's not like they build quality homes anymore. They are all pre-fabricated and slapped up at a pace of hundreds at a time - just to fall apart 10 years later.
The only thing "GREEN" about living on a cul-du-sack is your lawn... which collectively sucks up more water than agricultural crops in the US. (no wonder there are water shortages).
The roads and driveways are all impermeable as well. So runoff (along with all the crud on the road surfaces) must run through drains and culverts... eventually into your lakes and drinking water.
blueshift - Great. So YOU were able to walk 250m to the train station. What about the 5000 other people who live nowhere near the station? It's also too bad your job was outsourced to India. It's a competitive market. Maybe there are too many inefficiencies in the home land.
Liz
Do others who live in grids REALLY drive more? I know I certainly don't. In fact, most of the people I know don't even own a car because they simply don't require one to do the day to day activities (yes. I do one one because of my work). But I don't have to drive when I want to shop, go to the post office, head to the park, beach or work. And what about your blades of water sucking species of grass dabbled with the odd landscaped tree. Yeah. Thats "green".
kevynn
"but to go as far as to say our neighborhoods are making the air or whatever worse?"
Uhh. Yeah. More driving = more emissions. More roads (pavement) = heat island effect. More giant shopping centers = car culture. more dispersed housing = less public transit.
It really is that simple.
Ooopsy
"I'd like to live on one because of the no traffic racing through and that nice turn-around space out front"
My street has speed bumps on it. That means no racing. It's also a one way and is plenty wide enough to turn around on. Generally, its pretty quiet. We even have two parks, stores, an ambulance station and a subway station within a 5 mins walk. Nice eh?
So please - before another cul-du-sac resident chimes in to speak of how great is to live where you have parks and roads for kids to play on, remember that your kids could have been playing in what once may have been a forest instead. That no matter how little you say you drive, I bet that people in cities drive less (and yes, may weigh a little less). I think that they are also merely proving the point of how out of touch some are with the comments I have seen here. Wow.