3 ms·

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 rea

by jordo37 13y ago

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 of cul-de-sacs but people still drive everywhere because of - what seems to me - the more dominant issue of population density.

couchand 13y ago
If your grandfather's rural town was anything like my family's, it used to have a lively main street. Unfortunately the viability of that walkable neighborhood has been decimated by decades of greenfield construction out by the interstate.
philwelch 13y ago
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.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >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)
  - philwelch 13y ago
    That's a good point. Someone unavoidably had to lay out the streets but walkable cities and towns are quite a bit more organic than designed.
Steltek 13y ago
Cul-de-sacs can coexist with walkable neighborhoods, you just need to add ped/bike-only paths between the "bulbs". Additionally, cul-de-sacs breed a higher level of community than through-streets which has other benefits. You're right about low density being the more serious issue. That and zoning forbidding mixed-use and mandating parking minimums.

by jordo37 13y ago

couchand 13y ago

If your grandfather's rural town was anything like my family's, it used to have a lively main street. Unfortunately the viability of that walkable neighborhood has been decimated by decades of greenfield construction out by the interstate.

philwelch 13y ago

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.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>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)
- philwelch 13y ago
  That's a good point. Someone unavoidably had to lay out the streets but walkable cities and towns are quite a bit more organic than designed.

Steltek 13y ago

Cul-de-sacs can coexist with walkable neighborhoods, you just need to add ped/bike-only paths between the "bulbs". Additionally, cul-de-sacs breed a higher level of community than through-streets which has other benefits. You're right about low density being the more serious issue. That and zoning forbidding mixed-use and mandating parking minimums.