3 ms·

Wait, aren't these superblocks doing exactly what all the hip urbanists complain about the suburban culdesacs do?

Ericson2314 10y ago
Your typical American cul-de-sac is completely dead. All buildings are >30 feet from street, and no commercial anything within walking distance.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow. They create tiered street systems with feeder roads. "Hip" urbanists are always on about how that's a bad thing. These superblocks do the exact same thing.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow. That's not an "argument" -- that's simply a fact that is what proponents praise them for (keeping neigborhoods quite and safe by keeping out through traffic by providing no access to anywhere traffic would want to go) and what critics criticize them for (preventing efficient transit or foot traffic by lengthening routes to any road that provides access to any place you'd like to go.)
    - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
      So if that's a bad thing, then why are the self-same urbanists proposing that it's a good thing?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        (1) I don't see evidence that its, in general, the same people praising superblocks as criticizing superblocks, and more importantly (2) I don't see evidence that they do the same thing, so even if it is the same people, there's no inherent inconsistency: both reduce local traffic, but by very different means which have different effects. Superblocks don't create a hierarchical network which favors long travel routes but prevents through traffic, superblocks don't create a road system that lacks through access on main corridors within easy walking distant so as to support mass transit, and superblocks don't increase walking/bike travel distance by the manner in which they reduce local motor vehicle traffic.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It's an hybrid; it keeps a fairly dense grid system while providing tiny cul-de-sac (which aren't really, since the road starts and ends in different spots), which do have some advantages. More importantly, in my opinion, it's not a cul-de-sac for pedestrians, which avoids the terrible result of taking the car to go to the supermarket 300m away simply because there's no way to walk from A-to-B.
CydeWeys 10y ago
Cul-de-sacs are purely residential, with nothing besides other people's houses in walking distance. Superblocks are in dense urban areas, with almost everything you could need in walking distance. Plus superblocks are designed to be maximally walkable, whereas cul-de-sacs are designed to be minimally transitable by any method. It doesn't affect cars as much because cars go faster, but it's murder on getting anywhere efficiently by walking.

Your typical American cul-de-sac is completely dead. All buildings are >30 feet from street, and no commercial anything within walking distance.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow. They create tiered street systems with feeder roads. "Hip" urbanists are always on about how that's a bad thing. These superblocks do the exact same thing.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow. That's not an "argument" -- that's simply a fact that is what proponents praise them for (keeping neigborhoods quite and safe by keeping out through traffic by providing no access to anywhere traffic would want to go) and what critics criticize them for (preventing efficient transit or foot traffic by lengthening routes to any road that provides access to any place you'd like to go.)
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    So if that's a bad thing, then why are the self-same urbanists proposing that it's a good thing?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      (1) I don't see evidence that its, in general, the same people praising superblocks as criticizing superblocks, and more importantly (2) I don't see evidence that they do the same thing, so even if it is the same people, there's no inherent inconsistency: both reduce local traffic, but by very different means which have different effects. Superblocks don't create a hierarchical network which favors long travel routes but prevents through traffic, superblocks don't create a road system that lacks through access on main corridors within easy walking distant so as to support mass transit, and superblocks don't increase walking/bike travel distance by the manner in which they reduce local motor vehicle traffic.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's an hybrid; it keeps a fairly dense grid system while providing tiny cul-de-sac (which aren't really, since the road starts and ends in different spots), which do have some advantages. More importantly, in my opinion, it's not a cul-de-sac for pedestrians, which avoids the terrible result of taking the car to go to the supermarket 300m away simply because there's no way to walk from A-to-B.

CydeWeys 10y ago

Cul-de-sacs are purely residential, with nothing besides other people's houses in walking distance. Superblocks are in dense urban areas, with almost everything you could need in walking distance. Plus superblocks are designed to be maximally walkable, whereas cul-de-sacs are designed to be minimally transitable by any method. It doesn't affect cars as much because cars go faster, but it's murder on getting anywhere efficiently by walking.