> The thing that blows my mind the most is how easy it is to accommodate massive growth by simply requiring a connected street grid — what almost every American town and city did before WW2 and the suburban design social engineering projects of the FDR and Eisenhower eras. A grid can scale. The stupid cul-de-sac design is literally engineered to create traffic congestion. How much more land are we going to inflict that abomination on?
Cul-de-sac design (and the related 3-leaf clover design where you have multiple cul-de-sacs all emptying into a single artery, allow for more private front porch experiences and kid-play areas.
It was a reaction to the inability of most residential towns to keep out the gangs, racers and high-speed commuters (ie, bad combo with pedestrians, kids playing in the street).
Cul-de-sacs without pedestrian (or cycle) path cut-throughs make journeys that could be a 3 minute walk unnecessarily long on foot, leading to a general increase in car use.
You said it in your reply: all the streets emptying onto a single artery.
The fears of gangs etc that you cite are the common defenses of why people left specific inner cities in the 60s, but small towns (like Apex, in the source article) don’t have that problem and they do have the grids.
The main issue affecting safety is simply traffic speed and street width. It’s quite easy to design a safe street for children by making it hard for cars to go fast, the best example of this being the Dutch “voonerf,” (https://youtu.be/bSBdshn2tUM). You can accomplish the same thing with more spread out garden style homes as well.
Cul-de-sac design (and the related 3-leaf clover design where you have multiple cul-de-sacs all emptying into a single artery, allow for more private front porch experiences and kid-play areas.
It was a reaction to the inability of most residential towns to keep out the gangs, racers and high-speed commuters (ie, bad combo with pedestrians, kids playing in the street).
How do cul-de-sac designs cause congestion?