Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#31

Post by ynniv »

bcoates wrote: post #25
ynniv wrote: post #10

The article mentions that Atlantic Station sits on a large parking deck, but doesn't explore how its 7,200 parking spaces can make an otherwise small outdoor mall very busy at popular times. Cars remove you from your immediate surroundings, but they also enable you to temporarily be part of a community physically distant from where you live. The answer to why Atlantans drive so much is not that they are lazy, but tha…

The article wasn't complaining about density but about structure; a fences-and-backyards suburb arranged on a grid or some other well-connected layout is much more walkable than the same density suburb where all traffic must pass through a distant trunk to a major street. This makes it possible to actually connect useful mass transit to the suburb, which as the article explained, people will use if it's there.

That's the catchy title, but the article is really about density and transportation by car. There's a nice diagram describing how living in the suburbs reduces the number of places in walking distance, but in that diagram the house isn't even on a cul-de-sac. The thesis is actually that cul-de-sacs increase driving distance, because the places where they are used tend not to have any walkable destinations.

This makes it possible to actually connect useful mass transit to the suburb, which as the article explained, people will use if it's there.

The article says that people in midtown take MARTA to the grocery store... I can confidently tell you that this is incorrect at best. People in midtown drive their car to Whole Foods on the way back from their 15 minute reverse commute to work in another part of town. They will later walk to a local restaurant, bar, the park, or a local grocery or retail store, but it is rare that they will use MARTA except to get to the airport.

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#32

Post by jchrisa »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24
potatolicious wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large part of it is crime and/or race. The modern subdivision - full of meandering streets and poor connectivity to nearby arterials - is deliberate. It creates the gated neighborhood effect without the need to put up any unsightly walls or gates, and in effect keeps its residents separated from the world outside. The world outside presumably filled with undesirables. The lack of connectivity discourages through tr…

I guess it is unfortunate that the suburbs are where the poor are these days [1]. I think your description is accurate although the motivations are not. Neighbourhoods were designed to be convenient to residents and inconvenient to non-residents. This does discourage crime as it makes non-residents more visible and that makes it more difficult to commit a crime and not be noticed. [1] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Soc…

By non-residents do you mean non-drivers?

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#33

Post by b3b0p »

redthrowaway wrote: post #12

>Why do most people fail to walk even the 10,000 daily steps needed to stay healthy? Where does that figure come from? A lazy guestimate of 1m/stride puts that at 10km/day. That's 2 hours of walking a day. Who the hell spends 2 hours a day walking?

From my experience, walking for 45-60 minutes in addition to my daily routine (the items mentioned by other posters already) add up to about the 10,000 step goal.

I try to bike to work every day and/or walk about 5km in addition to anything else I do (work, lifting weights, etc).

I don't measure (anymore). I just try to move my body as much as I can when I can.

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#34

Post by MAGZine »

lucaspiller wrote: post #30

> Aesthetics matter. We walk farther when streets feel safe and interesting. People who live in central New York or London typically walk between a third to a half mile to go shopping. That’s a four- to 10-minute stroll. I don't think aesthetics is really the main point. Older cities like New York and London aren't designed for cars. High rise buildings don't have parking for every home / desk so it isn't an option t…

Underground parking provides plenty of avenues for people to own a car if they want. However, these cities are so well connected that it doesn't make sense to own a car because it's easier to walk, and given the option, people wouldn't want to navigate streets if they have the option of walking to work or shopping.

Cul-de-sacs on the other hand are the signature of urban sprawl. If you live in a cul-de-sac, odds that walking to shopping isn't very convenient. You also probably have a car, so why bother?

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#35

Post by officemonkey »

bcoates wrote: post #25
ynniv wrote: post #10

The article mentions that Atlantic Station sits on a large parking deck, but doesn't explore how its 7,200 parking spaces can make an otherwise small outdoor mall very busy at popular times. Cars remove you from your immediate surroundings, but they also enable you to temporarily be part of a community physically distant from where you live. The answer to why Atlantans drive so much is not that they are lazy, but tha…

The article wasn't complaining about density but about structure; a fences-and-backyards suburb arranged on a grid or some other well-connected layout is much more walkable than the same density suburb where all traffic must pass through a distant trunk to a major street. This makes it possible to actually connect useful mass transit to the suburb, which as the article explained, people will use if it's there.

Chicago nails this. The grid road network throughout the entire city means there is regular N-S and E-W bus service every half mile or so. And there are business districts in pretty much every neighborhood.

This happens is areas of low housing density (single-family homes in Jefferson Park) and high density (high-rises in Lincoln Park.)

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#36

Post by VladRussian2 »

philwelch wrote: post #5
jordo37 wrote: post #3

This is interesting and I always love urban planning discussions, but I feel there is something a little off about this. It seems to be suggesting that that reason people in non-urban areas are overweight / drive is because of dendritic street patterns, but those exist and are emblematic of a lower population density. If you took my grandfather's fully rural town in the middle of Nebraska, there isn't much in the way…

Density is an effect and not a cause of design. My dad grew up in Bend, Oregon during the Depression. People had cars but walked to work, typically at the sawmill. Bend was a small town and not the tourist destination it is today, but it was apparently designed to be walkable. Go to Bend today though, and it's been rebuilt for cars rather than humans.

>it was apparently designed to be walkable.

was it really "designed"? To me one of the issues with modern development is that it is explicitly "designed/planned" and thus diversity and vibrancy is naturally limited by the views/imagination of the designers/developers and politicians. (an illustration from another area - it is like "planned" economy vs. naturally evolving/developing capitalist economy)

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#37

Post by jimmaswell »

timjahn wrote: post #8

I'll never understand why we continue to design our suburbs for cars and driving with no attempt to encourage walking. Instead, we seem to discourage walking through a lack of sidewalks, concentration of destinations surrounded by parking lots a mile wide themselves, and burying houses in subdivisions that require almost a mile walk just to get out of.

Maybe people don't like walking? I know I don't.

Re: Why cul-de-sacs are bad for your health

#39

Post by nilsbunger »

redthrowaway wrote: post #12

>Why do most people fail to walk even the 10,000 daily steps needed to stay healthy? Where does that figure come from? A lazy guestimate of 1m/stride puts that at 10km/day. That's 2 hours of walking a day. Who the hell spends 2 hours a day walking?

Fitbit promotes the 10,000 step number. They have a blog post with links to sources. http://blog.fitbit.com/?p=194

Having several family members with fit bits, I can tell you it's definitely do-able. It adds up more quickly than you think!

Post reply on HN