Dead Ends, Really

Developers love ‘em, and homebuyers look for ‘em: cul-de-sac residences. Quiet and away from through-traffic, safe and off the beaten orbit. Safe places for kids to play. If you can sell a house in a new development at all, the properties on the cul-de-sacs will almost always go first. So since there’re so cherished and people love ‘em, I guess that means they are something that government needs to get rid of.

Yup… I figured you might want a respite from Taliban-meets-Goldman Sachs stories and see something that is less-than-critical that you probably never think about… the dreaded banishment of cul-de-sacs. Why? Crotch and shoe bombers prefer these places? They’re better for weed and crystal meth growing/manufacturing? Nah! They’re less efficient to those city services – trash collection, snow plowing, street cleaning, police patrol, etc., harder for emergency vehicles to access or even find, and require more driving through circuitous streets to reach main arteries, shopping centers, etc. (hence they encourage wasting fuel and add extra car trips for simple errands). So they’re toast! I know these issues were gnawing at your innards!

The cul-de-sac was primarily a product of post World War II suburban planning – one of the many off-shoots generated as housing tracts were produced to service the massive influx of soldiers returning after the war. The theory of “safety, peace and quiet” was a great marketing tool, and those private spots, with a few homes clustered at the end of a “no-thru-way” street, were indeed coveted.

Not so “fast” says the December 31^st FastCompany.com: “[A]ppearances can deceive. All indications are that cul-de-sacs are less safe than pre-war neighborhoods layed [sic] out in the traditional grid. An article by Philip Langdon in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of New Urban News shows that, according California accident statistics, cul-de-sac neighborhoods see more car crashes than the denser pre-war neighborhoods. The older grid patterns also have quicker response times for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. And accidents and crimes in the older neighborhoods are more likely to be reported faster since they have more people on the streets.”

The myth that these properties hold their values better than grid-based housing appears to be another myth that tough economic times may have shattered. The August 22^nd New York Times tracked the fate of a group of cul-de-sac homes in the Riverside Country community of the Moreno Valley, one of those bedroom neighborhoods at the edge of the Los Angeles sprawl. This area was particularly hard-hit by the housing collapse, with foreclosures exploding across entire neighborhood and 50%+ erosions of underlying values. Cul-de-sac houses fell in value and faced foreclosure at the same rate as those “grid street” houses nearby. There was no meaningful differential in “the big hurt.”

So… “whatever”… as state and municipal governments begin to clamp down on this dreaded menace: “[In early 2009,] Virginia became the first state to encourage walkable neighborhoods by limiting the use of cul-de-sacs. State rules now require that subdivisions have through streets connecting them to adjacent residences and shopping areas. Developments that ignore the new rules will be denied snowplowing and other state services. Research shows that neighborhoods with more street connections and intersections reduce car use. Some of the country's most progressive-minded cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, have also made it difficult to build new cul-de-sac subdivisions.” I am so glad that our elected representatives and the civil servants that implement their policies are on the alert!

I’m Peter Dekom, and I bet you’re all worked up over this one!