3 ms·
The Berkeley solution has the advantage that it doesn't hurt the utility of walking and cycling.
by oftenwrong 10y ago
The Berkeley solution has the advantage that it doesn't hurt the utility of walking and cycling.
- oh_sigh 10y agoBut it does negatively affect some home prices while positively affecting other home prices.
- enoch_r 10y agoIt's much more difficult to change streets into cul de sacs after the fact, but I can't imagine that forcing through-traffic to take certain streets doesn't reduce the value of homes on those streets, regardless of the method you use to do so.
- plorkyeran 10y agoCul-de-sacs could easily be built with connecting bike/pedestrian pathways if that was something the developers actually cared about.
- _delirium 10y agoThat's pretty common. I lived in a suburban neighborhood in Houston for years and the back-to-back cul-de-sacs always had sidewalks connecting them, so it was only with a car you'd have to go around the long way. As a result it was actually a lot nicer to travel through subdivisions if you were going somewhere by bike/foot, rather than going on the busy main roads.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoYes. For an extreme example, see Houton, NL: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houten,+Netherlands/@52.0309639,5.1562873,17.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c666e7c006f4bb:0x87d8ebe7bead1a3d!8m2!3d52.0278426!4d5.1630019 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houten,+Netherlands/@52.03...