Share

Cul-de-sacked

I grew up on a cul-de-sac in New Jersey. That great big roundabout of asphalt in front of my house was my playground. The neighborhood kids and I would ride our Big Wheels for hours while our moms chatted in the driveway. In the street, we improvised sports of every kind. Tennis was played without the annoyance of a net. And stickball games often turned on dramatic home runs which, according to the ground rules, had to be crushed over a power line and into the mangy field where more houses were to be built.

Thirty years later, this version of suburban bliss seems to be going out of favor. The latest blow comes from Virginia, where new regulations mean that few cul-de-sacs will be built in the future. Developers can still put them in if they want to. But the state DOT, which maintains even the smallest local roads in Virginia, won't take care of the new ones. The regs also narrow the allowable width of subdivision streets from 40 feet to between 25 and 29 feet.

What's Virginia got against the ultimate icon of suburbia? Ironically, it boils down to the very quality that always made cul-de-sac streets popular with parents and lucrative for homebuilders: They are roads to nowhere. Building little pockets of asphalt isolation may create quiet and safe places to raise children. But it's no way to make an efficient transportation network.

By design, cul-de-sacs dump all traffic out to the same arterial roads. The result is that a few busy thoroughfares perpetually need widening. Virginia doesn't think it can afford that model anymore. "When you have 350 to 400 miles a year of new roads you have to maintain forever, it's a budgetary problem," Governor Tim Kaine recently told the Washington Post. "But it's not just about the money. It's about making connections between land-use and transportation planning and restricting wasteful and unplanned development."

The new buzzword, both in the Virginia suburbs and in densifying suburbs all across the country, is connectivity. Old-fashioned street grids allow cars—not to mention ambulances and fire trucks—to move more freely around bottlenecks. That fits nicely with the other big idea of the moment, walkability. A new batch of suburban developers, the creators of town centers, New Urbanist neighborhoods and high-rise condos near transit stations, has found these models to be at least as profitable as dead-end hamlets ever were.

Are cul-de-sacs bound for extinction? I doubt it. Even if they were, the ones built over the past half-century would be with us for decades to come. But if they did go away, that would be fine by me. Kids will always find a place to romp and play games. When you think about it, the playgrounds, recreation centers, parks and sports fields that city and county governments provide are probably better places for that than a patch of asphalt anyway.

Comments

On Cul-de-Sacs

"When you think about it, the playgrounds, recreation centers, parks and sports fields that city and county governments provide are probably better places for that than a patch of asphalt anyway."
I disagree. While there may be a place for those rec centers, etc., the cul-de-sac infront of our house rivaled any of those places as a great place to play. In those government places, there are often too many kids, and the quieter ones get lost in the shuffle. I think the Governor's conerns about connectivity are legit, but your comments about the rightful place for kids to play bespeaks of a socialist mindset.

cul-de-sac controlled by local planning baord

In my area, a major city in North Carolina, I was told by a city council member a few years ago that it was not in the interest of the city to have cul-de-sacs. It limited growth and "connective streets" were much preferable.

I believe consumers, home buyers, still want cul-de-sacs. But as seems to be the trend, government claims to know what is best for us.

The whole socialist label is

The whole socialist label is laughable and suggest ignorance. So good urban design, cities that are built for people, cities that were built for the first 6,000 years of history, including American history up until 1950, are considered socialist? Why don't these people who call new urbanism socialist label the dominate suburban model socialist as well? The interstate highway system was the biggest government infrastructure project in history and it led to this age of sprawled out neighborhoods and suburbs. Suburbs were built almost completely around the freeway, a PUBLIC investment. Furthermore, the single-family house is probably the most subsidized commodity in the country. The mortgage deductions from single family homes alone are worth almost $100 billion a year. That's many more times than what we spend on what most people call "public housing." So what's socialist now?

Government refutation

Government is not claiming to know what's best for us, at least not in this case. Government is saying it's getting to the point where it's not financially feasible to expand and maintain a roadway network based on a bunch of streets to nowhere, especially when such streets feed onto a few major thoroughfares that, with growth, require practically constant reconstruction/expansion to handle the increased capacity. You're right - consumers still want cul-de-sacs. It's just that now such streets will have to be privately built and maintained.