njh... I wouldn't say that cul de sacs count as "suburbia".
Low density suburbs have their place along with urban environments.
However, Cul De Sacs are an example of the poor design philosophy that has become popular. It basically forces people to drive, to get anywhere, and perpetuates a culture of automotive dependency.
It's easy to confuse Cul De Sacs with suburbs, but there are differences.
In the suburbs, you can walk into town, or get on a bus or train to get to work. In an exurban Cul De Sac, you MUST drive a car to do even the most basic of tasks like buying a stick of butter or picking up dry cleaning.
In the suburbs, the streets are arraigned in a grid pattern, which dispels traffic, encourages walking, and is friendly for buses. In a Cul De Sac, it's very hard to navigate, and is filled with choke points that encourage traffic congestion, and generally isolates the community, as well as the people within the community.
2 comments:
So suburbia is better than urban environments?
njh...
I wouldn't say that cul de sacs count as "suburbia".
Low density suburbs have their place along with urban environments.
However, Cul De Sacs are an example of the poor design philosophy that has become popular.
It basically forces people to drive, to get anywhere, and perpetuates a culture of automotive dependency.
It's easy to confuse Cul De Sacs with suburbs, but there are differences.
In the suburbs, you can walk into town, or get on a bus or train to get to work.
In an exurban Cul De Sac, you MUST drive a car to do even the most basic of tasks like buying a stick of butter or picking up dry cleaning.
In the suburbs, the streets are arraigned in a grid pattern, which dispels traffic, encourages walking, and is friendly for buses.
In a Cul De Sac, it's very hard to navigate, and is filled with choke points that encourage traffic congestion, and generally isolates the community, as well as the people within the community.
Post a Comment