Should construction of new cul-de-sacs be banned?

[traininthedistance]

As a former resident of one, no. I don't see any logical reason to ban cul-de-sacs. I concur with IndyTX that they serve a useful purpose.

You're a green party supporter and you like environmentally unfriendly, inefficient, suburban sprawl patterns used by wealthy homeowners to design cities in ways that benefit them at the expense of community and the environment?  That's weird.  

I've never really studied urban planning or street planning, but what's influential on my thinking are the following:

Jane Jacobs, especially Death and Life of Great American Cities
Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic

Are you familiar with either book?

If you're familiar with Jacobs' arguments, you're ahead of the curve when it comes to these issues.

I'm sorry, what are these "bajillions" of apparently self-evident reasons why cul-de-sacs are so terrible?  And why it's such a pressing issue?

Just for starters...

Here's a good introduction to the reasons why.  The health angle has gotten the most press, but if anything I'm more concerned about the damaging psychological effects that walling up inside these subdivisions leads to (or, given that there is a chicken-and-egg problem here, possibly the harmful attitudes that leads to the creation of these fiefdoms):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another article reviewing the same book also cites evidence for what I was saying earlier, that a lot of people living in these subdivisions don't want to, but do so because more traditional neighborhoods have been radically undersupplied in the market, and that increasing the availability of those areas at the expense of cul-de-sacs is in fact the best move even from the myopic viewpoint of maximizing "choice".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

There are alternatives for developers who want to build subdivisions with cul-de-sacs. This is an aerial view of a subdivision platted in 1995 and built mostly between 1997-2002. The design features extensive use of "eyebrows" instead of cul-de-sacs. This limits the use of dead ends by a city (some remain), but the eyebrows allow the developer to create the feel of the circles at end of the cul-de-sac. The subdivision was designed with 712 homes to house about 2500 people and the city required a set aside of a park w/playground and a grade school connected by sidewalks as seen to the east and south of the water. There were 2676 residents in 2010.

[Cassius]

I love cul-de-sacs. Used to live in one. Wonderful place

[angus]

No.  They're good for folks who want to live on dead-end streets (me, for example).  My only objection is the use of a French term when we already have a perfectly functional English one already established.  

By the way, my French is a little rusty, shouldn't the plural be culs de sac (or even culs de sacs), and not cul de sacs?  

Anyway, my ideal street would have only one entrance and one exit, few houses, a spot to turn around in, a nice sidewalk, and never be referred to in the French language.

[PJ]

No.  They're good for folks who want to live on dead-end streets (me, for example).  My only objection is the use of a French term when we already have a perfectly functional English one already established.  

By the way, my French is a little rusty, shouldn't the plural be culs de sac (or even culs de sacs), and not cul de sacs?  

Anyway, my ideal street would have only one entrance and one exit, few houses, a spot to turn around in, a nice sidewalk, and never be referred to in the French language.

I believe the bolded one is correct. I remember hearing, on a sitcom ironically, someone complaining about the plural form.

[Indy Texas]

No.  They're good for folks who want to live on dead-end streets (me, for example).  My only objection is the use of a French term when we already have a perfectly functional English one already established.  

By the way, my French is a little rusty, shouldn't the plural be culs de sac (or even culs de sacs), and not cul de sacs?  

Anyway, my ideal street would have only one entrance and one exit, few houses, a spot to turn around in, a nice sidewalk, and never be referred to in the French language.

I believe the bolded one is correct. I remember hearing, on a sitcom ironically, someone complaining about the plural form.

Like nails on a chalkboard to my ears, not unlike when people speak of "attorney generals" instead of "attorneys general."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well it isn't actually a French term so such concerns are not terribly important. But are perhaps terribly characteristic of people who do, indeed, live in the arses of bags.

[Sol]

Anyway, as cul de sac is an English word, it's perfectly reasonable to pluralize it as cul de sacs and not culs de sac. The latter is in the same vein of those 19th century grammarians who attempted to get rid of double negation because Latin*. It did nothing except alter how people wrote- everyone still said it, and says it unless they're speaking a high register of a prestige dialect.


*I think that was the reasoning-although I could be wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just for starters...

Here's a good introduction to the reasons why.  The health angle has gotten the most press, but if anything I'm more concerned about the damaging psychological effects that walling up inside these subdivisions leads to (or, given that there is a chicken-and-egg problem here, possibly the harmful attitudes that leads to the creation of these fiefdoms):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another article reviewing the same book also cites evidence for what I was saying earlier, that a lot of people living in these subdivisions don't want to, but do so because more traditional neighborhoods have been radically undersupplied in the market, and that increasing the availability of those areas at the expense of cul-de-sacs is in fact the best move even from the myopic viewpoint of maximizing "choice".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree then with my analysis that they're breeding grounds for and based on the mindset of the George Zimmermans of the world? That's not something that should be encouraged.

[angus]

Well it isn't actually a French term so such concerns are not terribly important. But are perhaps terribly characteristic of people who do, indeed, live in the arses of bags.

Bags haven't arses, they have bottoms.  And it is French.  Although the phrase was coined by snooty British aristocrats, it was from the lexicon of the French that it was borrowed.  My only concern was that if we're going to be pretentious, we might as well go all the way and be grammatically correct as well.

My vote was no, not because, like most folks, I'd prefer to live on a street with no outlet rather than one with cars racing by at all hours, but rather because I'm not for bans generally, whether of posters who offend moderators or of dead end roads that offend people who apparently don't like dead end roads.  Don't like bag bottoms?  Then don't use bags.  But don't tell me that I can't.

[Hatman 🍁]

I have news for you, angus. Much of English has French roots. Why complain about one specific, rarely used word?

[angus]

I have news for you, angus. Much of English has French roots. Why complain about one specific, rarely used word?

Not really news, is it?  Or have you only just heard of the battle of Hastings?

Moreover, my complaint--if it can be called a complaint--is about control, not about language.  Also, note that my position is clearly in the majority.  Not that that popularity justifies the position, but it's nice to know that most others here aren't on board with the ban.
 
In any case, prepositional phrases work the same way in English and in French, so really no argument needs to hinge on etymology or upon history.  Sac is the object of the preposition.  Culs are the subject in question.  Should they be banned or should it be banned?  I argue that it is they, not it.  Of course, I'm not for banning them, but if someone wants the ban, presumably it is more than one he is trying to ban. 

[traininthedistance]

Well it isn't actually a French term so such concerns are not terribly important. But are perhaps terribly characteristic of people who do, indeed, live in the arses of bags.

Bags haven't arses, they have bottoms.  And it is French.  Although the phrase was coined by snooty British aristocrats, it was from the lexicon of the French that it was borrowed.  My only concern was that if we're going to be pretentious, we might as well go all the way and be grammatically correct as well.

My vote was no, not because, like most folks, I'd prefer to live on a street with no outlet rather than one with cars racing by at all hours, but rather because I'm not for bans generally, whether of posters who offend moderators or of dead end roads that offend people who apparently don't like dead end roads.  Don't like bag bottoms?  Then don't use bags.  But don't tell me that I can't.

Where's the evidence that the bolded part is true?  (And please keep in mind my previous cite, which made clear that a whole bunch of people who do live on dead-end streets like that would actually prefer a different setup.)  The results here certainly bear out your aversion to bans in general as a philosophical matter, and I can sympathize with that, but it doesn't follow that all the people voting "no" actually like cul-de-sacs.

(And, also, I would recommend you actually check out my links and listen to the evidence cited therein before insinuating that mere "dislike" is the reason for proposals along these lines.  Thx.  I'm not saying you need to agree with those reasons, [though you should 'cause they're correct ], but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge they exist.)

[Linus Van Pelt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the above is about right.

(It's not just symbolic either, since new subdivisions are being built on farmland annexed into the city limits, and they have essentially no cul-de-sacs).

[Mechaman]

A thread where I am in perfect agreement with both BRTD and traininthedistance?

Wow.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The terrain around here generally isn't flat enough to make a grid system the best option.  However, last weekend, I had reason to make a visit to someone who lived in a neighborhood designed to sell GPS devices.  It wasn't even a cul-de-sac in the strict sense.  Indeed, that might well have been easier to navigate, since if there were only one way into the neighborhood, it would have been easier to find the way out.

[angus]

like most folks

Where's the evidence that the bolded part is true?  

Seriously dude?



And that's at a forum populated by 13-year-old Obama Care-loving, video-game playing loafs who have never perused the real estate market.  Imagine the skew in the real world.

Seriously, if you know any grown ups who live in suburbia, go up to them and strike up a conversation.  Better yet, look through the real estate ads.  The "cul de sac" is a major selling point.  Again, I hate that real estate agents reach for a foreign word, but then they call a room with a toilet and a sink a "half bath" (WTF?).  Once you get beyond their penchant for weird language, though, you'll see that they know what people want.

I'll go check out your links, but I have bought and sold houses, and I have talked to realtors, and I do hang out generally with old, boring married people who have children and who buy houses.  Seriously, the dead end street, especially one with sidewalks and little footbridges over streams and little parks, are attractive to the demographic that buys and sells houses.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, but estate agents are spawn of Satan. Everyone knows that.

[traininthedistance]

like most folks

Where's the evidence that the bolded part is true?  

Seriously dude?

I'm sorry about your lack of reading comprehension.  Once again, slowly, voting against banning something is NOT the same as actually liking it or approving of it.  The poll here only shows evidence of the former*; I don't know whether your insistence on the latter is simple confusion or willful disingenuousness, but either way it just doesn't fly.

*And, in fact, take note of the multiple responses by people in this thread stressing that they would vote no despite their well-grounded disapproval of cul-de-sacs.

[Sol]

I think something like the Madison rules Linus posted would make sense as a requirement. I fail to see how cul de sacs are necessary for a quiet, pleasant neighborhood.

[traininthedistance]

Also, of course, it's really quite obviously silly and destructive to conflate the desires of "old boring married people" with the universe of people as a whole- and not just in the way it just completely ignores the needs of younger folks and the way in which their tastes are no longer sculpted by conditions from forty years ago.  For instance, I bet at least some of those "old boring married people" will start to regret walling up in their secluded castles when they get really old and can't safely drive themselves everywhere anymore.

But, of course, if you live on a cul-de-sac where the only people you ever see are "old boring married people" just like you, it's easy to forget about the little fact that your tastes and needs are far from universal.

EDIT: Another point worth mentioning (though it's really just a corollary to the oversupply argument) is that, even if one were to grant that cul-de-sacs were perfectly tailored to meet the needs of these so-called "old boring married people", it's still a fact that the percentage of Americans who fit that particular bucket are falling, and are going to continue to fall for many years to come.   Continuing to build neighborhoods for just that one demographic in mind is explicable from a pure inertia perspective.  The realtors and builders you talk to have spent their career in that paradigm, and surely have become set in their ways; keep that in mind.  But it further exacerbates the mismatch where people who want other options can't find them; it tries to mash an ever-growing chorus of round pegs into square holes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but estate agents are spawn of Satan. Everyone knows that.

No, they are the spouses of the spawn of Satan.  Car salesmen are spawn of Satan.

[dead0man]

Lawyers have got to be in there somewhere.