4 ms·

ctrl+f -> kids, family, play, children Nothing. The author, along with many strongtown arguments I've read, completely misses the point. A cul-de-sac is not o

by soared 6y ago

ctrl+f -> kids, family, play, children Nothing. The author, along with many strongtown arguments I've read, completely misses the point. A cul-de-sac is not optimized for cost, efficiency, or anything measurable by numbers. The value is in community building - kids playing in a safe area away from a trafficked road, neighborhood BBQs, a place to learn to ride a bike, etc. Many suburbs don't have access to a park or even parking lot right outside their door, but a cul-de-sac provides a very convenient and safe space To counter those thinking car traffic still exists since its a road - it does not. Neighbors in a cul-de-sac see kids playing in it all the time and when turning off the main road slow down to a crawl or stop. EDIT: My comment kind of misses the point of the article - that cul-de-sacs should maybe be taxed higher since they're inefficient from a cost perspective. Most of the article reads very negatively against them though, and the bias of strongtowns bolsters that point for me.

tjr225 6y ago
The point is not that they don’t have positives; but that they don’t pay for themselves. If you want to live in a cul de sac you should at least pay more in taxes to keep up the inefficient infrastructure you require for your lifestyle. Ironically it seems the people that live in cul de sacs feel like they should pay less in taxes for some reason even though the public infrastructure that is required to maintain the positives they enjoy costs more and is inefficient.
- teeray 6y ago
  Sometimes HOAs basically account for that. New streets in some cities and towns are made responsible for their roads, culverts, sewer, etc. HOAs can be good all the way down to horrific, sure, but when they’re good things typically get addressed quicker than they would waiting for the municipality to get around to it.
cool_dude85 6y ago
Probably better to have purpose-built infrastructure for this kind of thing, genuinely open to everyone and not just those who can afford the suburban home. Why don't all suburbs have close access to a park within walking distance?
- rriepe 6y ago
  It's more like yelling-for-dinner distance.
- soared 6y ago
  Agreed - small parks and greenbelts are definitely better. In Boulder, CO a few houses have bought their next door neighbors house just to tear it down and build a small park/open yard.
  - koolba 6y ago
    Someone should try that in Detroit.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    They’d be tarred and feathered if they do it in California. And then taxed punitively for taking land out of housing market.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
this! agree so much. also, less crime statistics.
csa 6y ago
While the author of the linked article does not mention your points specifically, he doesn’t exclude them either. The article is about the cost of things like cul de sacs. I imagine the author is fine with neighborhoods wanting and keeping their cul de sacs... they will just need to pay for their development and maintenance with an appropriate tax. I think that’s reasonable. “... a possible short-term solution might be a suburb use tax: the less dense or farther out your subdivision is, the higher surcharge you pay on your property tax, based on a sliding scale. This would not be a penalty on suburban living per se but rather a plan to ensure that the people that get to enjoy the “benefits” of it should pay for it.”
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  That’s not an urban planning issue, that’s a local government and tax policy issue. Density for some, sprawl for others, as long as everyone is paying for the costs they incur.
  - csa 6y ago
    Urban planning, government, and tax issues are interdependent.
  - acdha 6y ago
    That’s like a programmer saying performance is somebody’s else’s problem. Just as we have to balance what we can develop and operate, an urban planner has to work within the constraints of a budget. This writer is making the case for taxes to do exactly what you propose to ensure that people aren’t expecting their choices to be subsidized by everyone else.
joshuamorton 6y ago
The articles thesis is that low sensory housing is financially unsustainable because infrastructure isn't paid for. Cul de sac may be better qol than other low density housing, but that doesn't make them more sustainable. And a walkable urban neighborhood with a nearby park avoids the issue. Saying cul de sacs are necessary for suburbs doesn't address the "suburbs are bad" claim.
SamBam 6y ago
No one is disagreeing with that, but they have to be paid for or the town will eventually be broke, or forced to let them go to seed.
burlesona 6y ago
Why is it that most surburbs have no parks in walking distance, but most older “inner city” neighborhoods do? And supposing you could pick between a cul-de-sac or a park at the end of your block (holding everything else about the neighborhood the same), which would you prefer? One of the reasons older neighborhoods have more amenities sprinkled throughout is that narrower streets and rectangular blocks cost a lot less to build and yield more homes (with the same average yard size) compared to wide curvilinear streets. That extra money could be used for parks, schools, shops, libraries, etc. If there are people out there who would prefer more pavement in exchange for less of everything else, I think that’s fine as long as they pay the cost of it. But as for me I’d rather have a more efficient neighborhood design that leaves funding left over for other things besides asphalt.
- teeray 6y ago
  In the suburbs, the whole neighborhood is basically a park with houses in it. Kids care far less about imaginary lines on a deed than adults do. Consequently, they bomb around the whole place and they’re all still in earshot as you work in the garage with the door open. By unspoken agreement your neighbors take over when the kids end up in their yard, since their kid is also among the horde. You can yell when dinner is ready. By contrast, the park at the end of the street requires far more ceremony. You round the kids up, and go with them. You have to haul whatever they will play with with you (and back). You sit there as they play. Sure, you chat with folks in the neighborhood, but everyone is a little restless since nothing is getting done other than supervision. Some eventually task nannies with this duty since there aren’t enough hours in the day. It’s basically a space-efficiency vs. time-efficiency tradeoff. I’ve looked at it from a family raising perspective, but you could certainly consider it from a single twenty-something perspective, DINKs, retirees, etc. and have each shown in different light.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    This. In eight days I am decamping from a dense urban area with 2 amazing, world class parks to a suburban environ. We want to tell the kids to go play outside without the ceremony and the need for dedicated supervision. Because there's not enough time.
aqme28 6y ago
A cul-de-sac seems like overkill for that. We had all that growing up with just a regular suburb. I live in a city now and while my relationship to the community is fairly transient (and unfortunately gentrifying), lots of people still have community BBQs and kids still learn to ride bikes.
Spooky23 6y ago
My kid has a park to play in. Cities can and should be livable. Strongtowns is a advocacy site and I don’t agree with everything. But they make a great point about inequity and hidden costs. In New York, for example, “cities” are responsible for all road maintenance... towns are not, and suburban towns get to have the state and county maintain major roads, as one example, and usually get more state aid dollars. Suburbs tend to drive up sewer and utility costs as well. On the revenue side, the throwaway development of malls, etc 30 years ago killed urban commercial districts and left us with a bunch of declining junk as these facilities depreciate away.
presentation 6y ago
Anecdotally the Midwestern cul-de-sac I grew up in was utterly devoid of community and pretty much nobody in the development knew anybody else, except for to judge each other.

by soared 6y ago

tjr225 6y ago

The point is not that they don’t have positives; but that they don’t pay for themselves. If you want to live in a cul de sac you should at least pay more in taxes to keep up the inefficient infrastructure you require for your lifestyle. Ironically it seems the people that live in cul de sacs feel like they should pay less in taxes for some reason even though the public infrastructure that is required to maintain the positives they enjoy costs more and is inefficient.

teeray 6y ago
Sometimes HOAs basically account for that. New streets in some cities and towns are made responsible for their roads, culverts, sewer, etc. HOAs can be good all the way down to horrific, sure, but when they’re good things typically get addressed quicker than they would waiting for the municipality to get around to it.

cool_dude85 6y ago

Probably better to have purpose-built infrastructure for this kind of thing, genuinely open to everyone and not just those who can afford the suburban home. Why don't all suburbs have close access to a park within walking distance?

rriepe 6y ago
It's more like yelling-for-dinner distance.
soared 6y ago
Agreed - small parks and greenbelts are definitely better. In Boulder, CO a few houses have bought their next door neighbors house just to tear it down and build a small park/open yard.
- koolba 6y ago
  Someone should try that in Detroit.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  They’d be tarred and feathered if they do it in California. And then taxed punitively for taking land out of housing market.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

this! agree so much. also, less crime statistics.

csa 6y ago

While the author of the linked article does not mention your points specifically, he doesn’t exclude them either. The article is about the cost of things like cul de sacs. I imagine the author is fine with neighborhoods wanting and keeping their cul de sacs... they will just need to pay for their development and maintenance with an appropriate tax. I think that’s reasonable. “... a possible short-term solution might be a suburb use tax: the less dense or farther out your subdivision is, the higher surcharge you pay on your property tax, based on a sliding scale. This would not be a penalty on suburban living per se but rather a plan to ensure that the people that get to enjoy the “benefits” of it should pay for it.”

toomuchtodo 6y ago
That’s not an urban planning issue, that’s a local government and tax policy issue. Density for some, sprawl for others, as long as everyone is paying for the costs they incur.
- csa 6y ago
  Urban planning, government, and tax issues are interdependent.
- acdha 6y ago
  That’s like a programmer saying performance is somebody’s else’s problem. Just as we have to balance what we can develop and operate, an urban planner has to work within the constraints of a budget. This writer is making the case for taxes to do exactly what you propose to ensure that people aren’t expecting their choices to be subsidized by everyone else.

joshuamorton 6y ago

The articles thesis is that low sensory housing is financially unsustainable because infrastructure isn't paid for. Cul de sac may be better qol than other low density housing, but that doesn't make them more sustainable. And a walkable urban neighborhood with a nearby park avoids the issue. Saying cul de sacs are necessary for suburbs doesn't address the "suburbs are bad" claim.

SamBam 6y ago

No one is disagreeing with that, but they have to be paid for or the town will eventually be broke, or forced to let them go to seed.

burlesona 6y ago

Why is it that most surburbs have no parks in walking distance, but most older “inner city” neighborhoods do? And supposing you could pick between a cul-de-sac or a park at the end of your block (holding everything else about the neighborhood the same), which would you prefer? One of the reasons older neighborhoods have more amenities sprinkled throughout is that narrower streets and rectangular blocks cost a lot less to build and yield more homes (with the same average yard size) compared to wide curvilinear streets. That extra money could be used for parks, schools, shops, libraries, etc. If there are people out there who would prefer more pavement in exchange for less of everything else, I think that’s fine as long as they pay the cost of it. But as for me I’d rather have a more efficient neighborhood design that leaves funding left over for other things besides asphalt.

teeray 6y ago
In the suburbs, the whole neighborhood is basically a park with houses in it. Kids care far less about imaginary lines on a deed than adults do. Consequently, they bomb around the whole place and they’re all still in earshot as you work in the garage with the door open. By unspoken agreement your neighbors take over when the kids end up in their yard, since their kid is also among the horde. You can yell when dinner is ready. By contrast, the park at the end of the street requires far more ceremony. You round the kids up, and go with them. You have to haul whatever they will play with with you (and back). You sit there as they play. Sure, you chat with folks in the neighborhood, but everyone is a little restless since nothing is getting done other than supervision. Some eventually task nannies with this duty since there aren’t enough hours in the day. It’s basically a space-efficiency vs. time-efficiency tradeoff. I’ve looked at it from a family raising perspective, but you could certainly consider it from a single twenty-something perspective, DINKs, retirees, etc. and have each shown in different light.
- RhysU 6y ago
  This. In eight days I am decamping from a dense urban area with 2 amazing, world class parks to a suburban environ. We want to tell the kids to go play outside without the ceremony and the need for dedicated supervision. Because there's not enough time.

aqme28 6y ago

A cul-de-sac seems like overkill for that. We had all that growing up with just a regular suburb. I live in a city now and while my relationship to the community is fairly transient (and unfortunately gentrifying), lots of people still have community BBQs and kids still learn to ride bikes.

Spooky23 6y ago

My kid has a park to play in. Cities can and should be livable. Strongtowns is a advocacy site and I don’t agree with everything. But they make a great point about inequity and hidden costs. In New York, for example, “cities” are responsible for all road maintenance... towns are not, and suburban towns get to have the state and county maintain major roads, as one example, and usually get more state aid dollars. Suburbs tend to drive up sewer and utility costs as well. On the revenue side, the throwaway development of malls, etc 30 years ago killed urban commercial districts and left us with a bunch of declining junk as these facilities depreciate away.

presentation 6y ago

Anecdotally the Midwestern cul-de-sac I grew up in was utterly devoid of community and pretty much nobody in the development knew anybody else, except for to judge each other.