11–20 of 138 posts
Homes on cul-de-sacs sell for more money.
The more of these you can squeeze into a given neighborhood, the more money you'll make off the development.
I've lived on a dead-end street (but not a cul-de-sac), and I've lived on a regular traffic street. I definitely preferred the dead-end with the lack of traffic and noise, and ability for kids to play in the street without fear of a car going 50 down it. And people did socialize with neighbors on the dead-end street (although maybe not as much as the regular street).
Currently I reside downtown, overlooking rails (the trains go quite slowly and make a noise far more agreeable than that of cars). There's a market under the rails, fruit vegtables and other foodstuffs at daytime, small quantities of drugs at night. I can buy on credit at both markets if I forget my wallet.
I will never understand the attraction of suburbs. The distances. The architecture. The boredom.
I like the sentiment of this article, but I don't like the wording of his survey. > Maps show that your neighborhood only has 1 entrance (through Radio Dr) creating a bottleneck and completely seperating [sic] you from your neighbors to the West, East, and South and adding extra miles to your commute. This is a really biased question, and will throw his survey results into question.
He fails to understand the main reason that home developers want to build neighborhoods with lots of cul-de-sacs: Homes on cul-de-sacs sell for more money. The more of these you can squeeze into a given neighborhood, the more money you'll make off the development.
I see what he's saying, but don't necessarily agree. I grew up in India and I'm not sure how the culture here is in the US, but most of my friends came from houses that were a maximum of 2 blocks away. Not how much of a difference you'd make by connecting houses that are as far apart as 2.5 miles. The link is great though, It seems obvious on hindsight, but I didn't realize cities were explicitly planned this way.
The point is not to connect you with houses 2.5 miles away--it's to connect you with houses 50 meters away that are completely inaccessible thanks to the street layout.
I see what he's saying, but don't necessarily agree. I grew up in India and I'm not sure how the culture here is in the US, but most of my friends came from houses that were a maximum of 2 blocks away. Not how much of a difference you'd make by connecting houses that are as far apart as 2.5 miles. The link is great though, It seems obvious on hindsight, but I didn't realize cities were explicitly planned this way.
The point is not to connect you with houses 2.5 miles away--it's to connect you with houses 50 meters away that are completely inaccessible thanks to the street layout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is not to connect you with houses 2.5 miles away--it's to connect you with houses 50 meters away that are completely inaccessible thanks to the street layout.
people can't walk on grass these days?
For overhead maps 1-4, couldn't you just simply walk over on foot?