Are the disconnected cul-de-sacs so popular in suburban development actually strangling their communities?
These striking images compare the walkability of two Seattle neighborhoods. The blue lines are how far a pedestrian could go walking from the red dot at the center.
At left is Woodinville, a typical suburban arterial jumble with no walkable areas. At right is Ballard, with much easier pedestrian access between points and to food, goods, and services. Ballard’s walkable footprint is much larger.
New research published in the Harvard Business Review finds those living in more walkable areas travel 26% fewer miles by car. As walkability increases, so does walking and biking, while pollution and fatness decrease.
The problem, The Seattle Transit Blog argues, is that the government, “historically let developers do nearly anything with cheap land.” “We all know what it’s like to have to get in your car to go to the Baskin Robbins in the next strip mall over. Is this an example of freedom? Not socio-economically, for certain. Not if you prefer to walk than drive. And certainly this lack of oversight is not the best choice for the planet.”
The Unintended Consequences of Cul-de-sacs [Harvard Business Review]
The Cul-de-Sac Ban [NYT Magazine]
How Cul-de-Sacs Are Killing Your Community [Infastructurist]
The Damaging Effect of Cul-de-sacs on Walkability [Seattle Transit Blog]
Is the Problem Auto-Dependency or Suburbia? [Seattle Transit Blog]
More From Consumerist
-
Insulting A Customer On Facebook Won’t Reopen Those Restaurants You Had To Close
-
I Want My Trans Fats Back: Consumerist Readers Speak Out About Recipe Changes
-
Woman Sues California Pizza Kitchen For $5 Million, Shocked That Frozen Pizzas Could Be Unhealthy
-
Study Says Low-Fat Milk Isn’t The Healthy Choice It’s Cracked Up To Be For Kids
-
Animal Shelters Make ‘Black Friday’ Literal, Adopt Out Black Pets For Free
I’m late to this topic, but anyone who is still following these comments and wants to learn more about “bad” suburbia, “good” suburbia, and cities can do a couple of things. One is watch a fun video (link below), and the other is to read a couple of books. One recent one I highly recommend is “The Option of Urbanism” (should be in your library), and the other is the classic “Death and Life of Great American Cities.” I study issues related to urban planning and energy use, and one organization that really “gets it” is the Congress for the New Urbanism — look ‘em up in your state and get to know your local chapter if you want to have a voice in these issues. We have not even gotten a taste of how difficult life for many Americans (especially) will be when oil starts tripling and quadrupling in price. Places that give people access to day-to-day needs via methods other than cars will be the winners in the shakeout — it’s why “mixed use” is such a buzzword in planning, for good reason. When it seemed like we’d have oil forever (and the money to maintain roads and bridges), it sounded like a good idea to separate shopping and offices from where people lived. Oops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI
The only benefit of the suburban neighborhoods is that in making them blocked off, they’re safer. No one goes in them if they don’t live there, there’s no through traffic, no strangers. They developers created lots of small towns inside of very populous suburbs. You can let your kids play outside without fear of them being snatched, and women can walk after dark.