A Dead End For New Cul-De-Sac Development?
Despite growing up in a suburban 1960s subdivision, I have never lived on a cul-de-sac street. Nor will I ever. Our block was close — it had a modified cul-de-sac but rather than being a dead end our street looped around to the same street or origin. The next street to the west did this to.
Later streets in the subdivision (70s/80s) did have more traditional dead end cul-de-sacs. To get through the subdivision you had to know how the streets curved, which connected and which looped back.
Overall I’d say I had a pretty normal childhood. A happy one too!I had a natural curiosity about different areas. Our family doctor lived in one of the oldest sections of town and his office was near an old shopping district.
As a kid everything I could reach by bike was the same stuff – sprawl. But once I had my driver’s license I explored the older areas of Oklahoma City – stuff from the teens & 20s. Ah, not cul-de-sacs in sight!
The most well known cul-de-sac in popular culture would be the one from the long running TV series, Knots Landing (1979-1993). Even the Brandy Bunch and Partridge Family lived on through streets. I hope the days of the cul-de-sac street pattern are behind us for good. That includes taking formerly through streets and closing them at one end.
Unfortunately, if Botanical Heights/McReeTown is any harbinger, the failed belief in cul-de-sacs is alive and well in St. Louis in the new millennium.
Worse than cul-de-sacs is when new road/highway construction purposely reduces access routes for pedestrians and increases traveling distances for motorized vehicles. The New 64 does both and has created other negative outcomes. The rerouting of traffic has led neighborhoods to block road access in order to keep motorized vehicles from taking the most efficient routes.
– –
One example, check out how Clayton has blocked Davis Drive on Hanley to deter traffic flow on public streets. This should only be a short term problem, however the elimination of pedestrian bridges/paths are problems designed to be permanent. The design flaws of cul-de-sacs had the value of creating privacy/security, the design flaws of MOdot are to save money and to favor the car culture over people/neighborhoods.
Never say never . . . Like many things in design, tastes change over time. I don’t claim to know the future, so I can’t say for sure whether we’ll see more cul de sacs or not. Part of it will be driven be government and part will be driven by consumer demand. But one thing that we don’t have much of around here that I fear may be coming is gated communities. We either need to reduce our crime rate in the city or there will be increasing pressure to “fortify” our neighborhoods and structures from the “marauding hoardes”, and gated communities, with or without cul de sacs are a popular choice in other parts of the country, especially the southwest . . .
I moved a lot growing up, always from suburb to suburb, around the country. The best street I lived on was on a cul-de-sac in the mid-80s. But it wasn’t because of the street shape–there were good neighbors, lots of kids (I was 7 or 8 when we moved there).
Now I live on a one-way through street in south city, where we have good neighbors and lots of kids. You grow up and realize that you can find that idyllic childhood location in better places (not car-bound and frustrating and long commutes and etc).
The only thing I miss, though, as a parent of young children, is slow traffic. People fly down my street (which dead ends onto Grand). But I don’t want to carve up the grid to change that–it just means staying vigilant in different ways. And being creative.
There are so many gated streets in the central west end that I am constantly forced to walk an extra half mile to get to destinations. Just as bad as cul de sacs.
Reading the Board of Alderman’s website, one finds so many street vacation bills each year one does wonder if anyone ever heard Rollin Stanley’s proclamation “streets are our birthright.” Close this alley for a business here, close this street for one block there — after awhile, we start duplicating the circulation problems of suburban areas.
Steve while your on the subject of things that are closed and less walk friendly, have you noticed how the city is allowing people to close off the walkways that cut across some of the long blocks in the city. There’s one that runs north & south from the alley in the 5300 block of Bancroft all the way up to Pernod. But at least two home owners along that path have been allowed to close it off with their privacy fences, which makes the original idea of having it in the first place pretty much useless. Why in the world, at a time when we are trying to make the city more walkable and pedestrian friendly, are they allowing this to happen? If seen the same thing in a few other neighborhoods.
now do we know for certain the Brady Bunch “lived” on a through street?
I grew up on a small cul de sac in Ferguson – just 7 or so houses but it was in short walking distance of schools, the library, parks and stores. cul de sacs aren’t necessarily the enemy. later we moved to a subdivision near 270 and it was like being held hostage (until driving age).
megablocks and single-use isolation/separation zoning are the culprits IMHO.
Hortense and Lenox Places are essentially cul de sacs, but are very much part of a vibrant urban neighborhood.
Cheryl – I remember being able to walk through the private streets – only driving was thwarted, has this changed? I haven’t had the time to wander on recent visits.
“Why in the world . . . are they allowing this to happen?” My guess would be simple fear – the home owners don’t want “strangers” walking past their homes, even though the sidewalk was there first!
Jim, my guess is that walkway was built about the same time as all the houses but regardless, this whole thing just proves what I’ve always said and that is that one of the real problems with the city today is that there are too many people in it that DON”T KNOW HOW TO LIVE IN THE CITY. If you can’t stand having people walk past your house then maybe you should pack up and move out in the woods someplace.
While your childhood nabe is still better than dead-end cul-de-sacs, you still have a disparity between the quiet, looping locals and the busy(ier), through collectors. Only in a grid, even if curvilinear, do you get true dispersion of traffic across equal local streets.
Here in Charlotte, we require street stubs of new development (cul-de-sacs only allowed on short blocks or topographically challenged sites). But since NIMBY’s living on these stubs (not true, bulbed and landlocked cul-de-sacs) would still show up to oppose adjacent development and the resulting connection, we now have to put up signs in new subdivisions explicitly informing homebuyers that their street will be connected via future development.
Dennis, I agree, these sidewalks likely date back to the thirties, so the odds of having an original residents still living next to them is extremely unlikely, and if they’re still alive, they probably aren’t the ones pushing for closure. And a couple of other obervations, one, this may also be a case of “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission”, as in the homeowner didn’t ask first and just assumed that they could (and the city hasn’t been notified/isn’t aware of the situation) OR two, (and more likely) one of our esteemed aldermen was looking at the little picture (consitituent “service”) and not the big picture (walkability for everyone in the neighborhood) when they signed off . . .
Jim, as long as I’ve gone this far I may as well harp on it some more. Here’s what I’ve learned over the course of 25 years in the neighborhood. The walkway we’re talking about even has (had?) a name, Northampton Way. The original Northampton subdivision, which consists of the 5200 & 5300 (Brannon to Macklind) blocks north of Chippewa to Pernod and also the first street south of Chippewa was built in the very early 30’s. Most, if not all houses were built by the Richardson Building company. Lots of gingerbread stone & brick work, stained glass, and vitrolite tile in the kitchens and baths. It’s a long walk from Brannon to Macklind with no cross street where 5300 begins hence the walkway. “Sidewalks” run along parrallel to the streets, a “walkway” cuts across the neighborhood.
I think they were a very good idea back then and now as well. Some people don’t like them out of fear as you said earlier, but I look at it differently. If more people were out walking the sidewalks, AND walkways, we’d have less crime. Think about it. If you were a burgler would you try to break in a window if there were people walking around to see you?
Don’t the plethora of streets (in the Shaw and Tower Grove neighborhoods and numerous other neighborhoods throughout our fair city) blocked off from through traffic with planters also qualify as (pseudo/neo)-cul-de-sacs? While they may be connected to the urban fabric for pedestrians, they certainly are detrimental to a fully connected grid.
.
That brings up the philosophical question of whether we should strive for a fully connected grid for pedestrians, automobiles, or both. Personally I’d say both, but I’m sure there are compelling arguments for pedestrian-only grid connectivity.
The problem at Davis Dr and Hanley were addressed by removing the barriers against motorized travel, a step in the right direction. Designs that interfere with efficient travel for cars, like bollards, planters, fences, cul-de-sacs, etc. often provide connective walkways for pedestrians, another step in the right direction.
i never understood why people want such big front yards. it cuts down on the size of your backyard. even the dumb 10 feet of grass in front of many houses is pointless. you have to tend it. if you built the house up to the sidewalk, or nearer, at least, either your house would be bigger, or your backyard would be bigger. nobody hangs out in the front yard. give me a nice walkable neighborhood any day over something that looks “prettier.”
Wayward, come take a walk around the Northampton Neighborhood. It’s walkable and looks pretty too! The houses could be a little closer to the streets I guess, but I think they are set back just the right amount for when a home owner wants to step back and admire the work he just did, ie paint job, shrub trimming, window shades, whatever, without stepping into traffic. You need to be back about 15 to 20 feet for that.
Cul de sacs are great. Your dog is less likely to get run over and your kids can play street hockey without having to move out of the way every 5 minutes.