The Real Estate section of Sunday’s New York Times featured an article about urban planning issues and the controversy surrounding the use (or misuse) of the cul-de-sac by developers. Northfield was cited as an example of the controversy. (If you can't view the article with the link, you can download the article in PDF format here.)
Being “against” cul-de-sacs seems positively un-American. But rather than being viewed as against cul-de-sacs, I’d prefer to be seen as for multiple means of mobility and pedestrian-scaled planning. It’s my way of resisting unsustainable automobile-dependent development styles which are 1) a historical and cultural anomaly, 2) not well suited to a geographically compact community like Northfield and 3) a stupid idea whose time is long past, especially in view of rising fuel prices and greenhouse gas emissions.
Planning commission chair Ross Currier said, “I love the fact that what gets Northfield in the New York Times is our planning debates...”
Comments
Tracy, what's the permalink of the blog entry where the article quoted you:
> In her blog, Tracy Davis, one of the commissioners who voted no, wrote a few days later that the city was essentially sanctioning “cul-de-sac starter castles and monotonous ’burb developments.”
It was the post entitled "The Tiresome Issue of Northfield's Comprehensive Plan"
Is it not possible to structure cul-de-sacs such that they are connected by pedestrian pathways? And if you accept that premise, doesn't that eliminate or reduce your objections concerning automobile dependency?
Second, your remark about cul-de-sacs being a "cultural anomoly" is unsupportable. The evidence suggests that legacy designs such as standard city blocks are dinosaurs that have fallen into 21st century disfavor.
Last, I defy you prove that urban design influences greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful, quantifiable way.
There is no “evidence” that standard city blocks are dinosaurs OR have fallen out of favor, as you contend. They’ve been around at least since Roman times and possibly before, and there are hundreds of examples of very livable cities and towns built on this model. In addition to numerous examples in Europe, some of our country’s most desirable real estate falls into this category (Georgetown- Washington DC, Boston, MA, and Portland, OR are a few cities that come to mind).
And urban design ABSOLUTELY impacts greenhouse gas emissions insofar as design done on the suburban model requires multiple vehicles for multiple individuals for multiple trips on a daily basis.
There have been situations where connecting cul-de-sacs with sidewalks or other pedestrian paths have been done; it’s certainly a good idea where cul-de-sacs exist. Unfortunately the results have been mixed—due to the enclosed nature of cul-de-sacs, pass-throughs seem like an intrusion, and the pathways tend not to be used much. But I agree that it might be a partial solution in Northfield, especially if we minimize the number of cul-de-sacs used.