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

131–140 of 143 posts

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

#131

Post by runako »

libria wrote: post #100
possibilistic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an Atlantan, you've nailed it. People living OTP ( outside the perimeter of I-285) are largely conservative, whereas those ITP are much more liberal. You wouldn't imagine that such a finely delineated categorical segmentation would occur, but it's very visible. Take, for instance, the fighting between Fulton County and the metro/MSA: last year's SPLOST vote [1], the Braves Stadium move [2], etc. all serve…

> the Braves Stadium move Wow, first I'd heard of it. I mean Turner Field is all of 16 years old; probably time for a new one. At least that should alleviate the summer downtown congestion, though I don't believe 285/75 really needs it. There's a section there that I thought I counted 9 lanes. Using City-of-Atlanta logic, I guess it's time for a 10th one, eh? More on topic, will Cobb now allow MARTA to extend up ther…

TL;DR

They are going to tear down Turner Field and do a large infill development project. Turner Field sits on one of the larger contiguous single-owner plots in the city.

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

#132

Post by tptacek »

potatolicious wrote: post #11
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.

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…

It's not about "undesirables", though surely there are some places where residents view that as a knock-on benefit. It's about through traffic. Residential streets that have very little traffic are more livable than ones with regular traffic. This is a design pattern from Christopher Alexander's book, which is not exactly a font of suburban Americana.

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

#133

Post by peatmoss »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74
webXL wrote: post #72

tl;dr Connectivity counts: More intersections mean more walking, and more disconnected cul-de-sacs mean more driving. People who live in neighborhoods with latticeworklike streets actually drive 26 percent fewer miles than people in the cul-de-sac forest.

That's a darned shame. Because streets use a shameful fraction of our city surface area. Cul-de-sacs can be quite efficient. Kind of like a dendritic structure, every endpoint served with a relative minimum of cement. I imagine the stats are because folks like to walk a circuit, not walk out-and-back on the same route, because its boring.

It more relates to the relative size of the service area and the fact that pedestrians have a steeper distance decay function than other modes.

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

#134

Post by tedunangst »

potatolicious wrote: post #124
saalweachter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think every person who moved to or built a suburb over the last 50-odd years was acting with explicitly racist motivations, but he's basically just describing "White flight": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

To be fair, I don't think he's denying white flight, and what I'm describing isn't really race-centric (though as with all things socioeconomic in the USA, race is always a factor). It's true that many suburbs, especially the early ones, were explicitly racist (i.e., bylaw-segregated communities), that's not what's under contention. The question is if the physical design of suburbia is influenced by the desire to kee…

One oft-claimed safety improvement is traffic. This isn't really true as pedestrian fatalities are still comparable to urban areas. But I am willing to accept that people believe they are getting improved traffic safety in these places.

I wonder to what extent pedestrian fatalities are comparable because kids play in the street? i.e., it is safer but children engage in riskier behavior and it reaches an equilibrium?

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

#135

Post by colinake »

runako wrote: post #130
colinake wrote: post #129

Atlantan here. I lived in West Midtown for five years post-college. It's the epitome of hip re-urbanization and all that comes with it. I walked from my house to a local restaurant or shop exactly 0 times during those five years. I moved to a cul-de-sac in a northern suburb six months ago. I'm 1 mile from 270,000 ft^2 of retail shopping and 1 mile from a walkable downtown with tons of shops and restaurants. Do I driv…

Atlantan also. >> happy spending $33/day to commute Just curious, how do you factor in an hour+ of commuting per day? For me, that seems like it would far outweigh the costs of moving further away from the office. Time away from kids, time not working/sleeping, etc. Money can be earned or received in investments, but Founder time is a finite resource at the business. Obviously if you're married with kids there are a…

My commute is about an hour a day.

There are many ways to turn this into productive time. Think. Listen to audiobooks/podcasts. Run through a few key work phone calls. Catch up with friends.

I really enjoy my commute.

I'll also point out that while that's theoretically $3660/mo if you aren't productive throughout any of the drive, that's not actually something many people can convert into cash. Many people spend time during the day with various items to unwind or provide a mental break from work. Working more is not always a goal. I don't want all my time to be spent working or sleeping.

You also have to account for where you spend your down time. I chose to live near friends and family in a place I can raise my kids. If I didn't live where I do, I'd be driving out here on the weekend and maybe once a week.

In addition, if you're living in town with kids and you want a quality education, you might be able to bill more $ a month (presuming you're building a business where you're selling your time, which I'm not and I don't want to do), but you're going to spend more money on a quality education or a house.

Everyone has different circumstances. My math works out for me. It might not for you.

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

#136

Post by lucaspiller »

MAGZine wrote: post #34
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…

In London at least there is very little underground parking. Most buildings are 50+ years old, and even in new builds it isn't very common.

When I was working there, in a building with ~2000 desks, the underground car park had a spacious 80 spaces. I lived a bit further out, so I actually had a driveway, but if you live in the centre you are lucky to even get on-street parking.

Still, as you say, it makes no sense to have a car due to the easy availability of public transport. It's a catch 22 really :)

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

#137

Post by Stronico »

paul_f wrote: post #122
sliverstorm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything other than a perfect grid in neighborhood design is due to classism? Sounds like bullshit to me. Mildly meandering side-streets: - Block some of the noise from nearby major streets - Obscure the view of traffic - Give the neighborhood a less "uniform" feel (think of how you feel in a neighborhood with 20 identical houses in a row. Arrow-straight roads contribute to that feeling) - Reduce through-traffic- not…

This article discusses suburban Atlanta so it might be worth noting that much of Atlanta is quite hilly. It would be quite difficult to build neighborhoods on a grid system. By using cul-de-sacs and other winding streets, you can better fit the geography.

I was just going to say this - Also worth nothing is the fact that Atlanta sits on a hunk of very uneven granite and has very strange drainage patterns.

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

#138

Post by Stronico »

runako wrote: post #131
libria wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Braves Stadium move Wow, first I'd heard of it. I mean Turner Field is all of 16 years old; probably time for a new one. At least that should alleviate the summer downtown congestion, though I don't believe 285/75 really needs it. There's a section there that I thought I counted 9 lanes. Using City-of-Atlanta logic, I guess it's time for a 10th one, eh? More on topic, will Cobb now allow MARTA to extend up ther…

TL;DR They are going to tear down Turner Field and do a large infill development project. Turner Field sits on one of the larger contiguous single-owner plots in the city.

I also heard rumors about horseracing - which would be great, but very unlikely. The area is unlikely to get any worse no matter what they do.

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

#139

Post by Stronico »

ch4s3 wrote: post #75
Stronico wrote: post #50

Two observations: 1. There are far, far more differences between Midtown and Mabelton than urban planning (Midtown is a young, liberal, much higher than average percentage of gay residents, close proximity to Georgia Tech) and Mabelton is pretty much in the opposite direction in every way possible. It is an apples to oranges comparison. 2. A huge advantage of cul-de sacs is that people don't speed down them like they…

Re: 2. Narrower streets do the same thing for traffic speed. For an added bonus, tree lined streets slow traffic even more due to how nearby moving objects in your peripheral vision change your perception of how fast you're moving. So, you can get the desired effect of the cul-de-sac without the cul-de-sac.

I live on a narrow street, with lots of trees, and lots of street parking, which makes it one lane in many parts. And Speed humps. It seems to make the cautious drive slower, but the speeders don't seem to be affected that much.

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

#140

Post by saalweachter »

tedunangst wrote: post #134
potatolicious wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I don't think he's denying white flight, and what I'm describing isn't really race-centric (though as with all things socioeconomic in the USA, race is always a factor). It's true that many suburbs, especially the early ones, were explicitly racist (i.e., bylaw-segregated communities), that's not what's under contention. The question is if the physical design of suburbia is influenced by the desire to kee…

One oft-claimed safety improvement is traffic. This isn't really true as pedestrian fatalities are still comparable to urban areas. But I am willing to accept that people believe they are getting improved traffic safety in these places. I wonder to what extent pedestrian fatalities are comparable because kids play in the street? i.e., it is safer but children engage in riskier behavior and it reaches an equilibrium?

It could also be the low frequency signal problem.

If you're driving in New York City, there are constantly people trying to jump in front of you. Out in the burbs you'll hardly ever see someone walking, so if someone walks in front of you, you may have zoned out and failed to detect it in time.

Post reply on HN