A century-old planning paradigm still embedded in the physical fabric of suburbs nationwide is driving a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem is the cul-de-sac, not mass transit. There’s a mistaken belief in America that the “dream” means having a single family house with a large yard. If we were to move more to mixed use land plots that include condos/apartments, as well as retail it would all become a moot point.
Why does everyone need a yard? Or for that matter, why are so many cul-de-sacs and neighborhoods built and not mixed use?
Linear density is what matters. Large yards that are deep but narrow are just fine if you want a large yard. Transit needs to pick up/drop off within a reasonable distance of the door without unduly delaying other passengers. A wide yard is a much larger problem, a narrow yard that just has with width of a bedroom and stairs+hall allows for plenty of density for great transit.
A hospital, 10 floor apartment complex, or big shopping malls are places high density, but if they are a long distance down a dead end (cul-de-sac) they are harder for transit to serve than straight street in a suburb despite the much lower density in the suburb.
This is important to remember. People asking for density for the sake of density too often end up with something that doesn’t help the cause they want. People who understand what they really want can fight for that, while allowing for less ideal things that are still close enough.
I don’t need a large yard, but there are a lot of nice things about having a large yard that I want. Ideally I want my front door to be on Times Square New York City, with a side door to a Caribbean sea beach, a backdoor to livestock pasture, and the other side a mountain - this is of course impossible, but if you don’t recognize why each of the above would be desirable you need to learn more about the world. Since it is impossible I have to compromise, but the less I compromise the better.
It’s more than just the cul-de-sac. Look at Bose’s comment above about being blocked from the shopping center by everyone having their own fenced in yards. Even if it’s a straight street, adding yards just increases distance and spreads things out further requiring cars.
It doesn’t. What a cul-de-sac gives you is assurance that there is no noisy/dangerous traffic by your house at all hours. A street that a bus can serve is also a street where lots of cars will be going by (or at least want to go by even if not allowed)
The problem is the cul-de-sac, not mass transit. There’s a mistaken belief in America that the “dream” means having a single family house with a large yard. If we were to move more to mixed use land plots that include condos/apartments, as well as retail it would all become a moot point.
Why does everyone need a yard? Or for that matter, why are so many cul-de-sacs and neighborhoods built and not mixed use?
Linear density is what matters. Large yards that are deep but narrow are just fine if you want a large yard. Transit needs to pick up/drop off within a reasonable distance of the door without unduly delaying other passengers. A wide yard is a much larger problem, a narrow yard that just has with width of a bedroom and stairs+hall allows for plenty of density for great transit.
A hospital, 10 floor apartment complex, or big shopping malls are places high density, but if they are a long distance down a dead end (cul-de-sac) they are harder for transit to serve than straight street in a suburb despite the much lower density in the suburb.
This is important to remember. People asking for density for the sake of density too often end up with something that doesn’t help the cause they want. People who understand what they really want can fight for that, while allowing for less ideal things that are still close enough.
I don’t need a large yard, but there are a lot of nice things about having a large yard that I want. Ideally I want my front door to be on Times Square New York City, with a side door to a Caribbean sea beach, a backdoor to livestock pasture, and the other side a mountain - this is of course impossible, but if you don’t recognize why each of the above would be desirable you need to learn more about the world. Since it is impossible I have to compromise, but the less I compromise the better.
I don’t know why a yard would require a cul-de-sac.
It’s more than just the cul-de-sac. Look at Bose’s comment above about being blocked from the shopping center by everyone having their own fenced in yards. Even if it’s a straight street, adding yards just increases distance and spreads things out further requiring cars.
It doesn’t. What a cul-de-sac gives you is assurance that there is no noisy/dangerous traffic by your house at all hours. A street that a bus can serve is also a street where lots of cars will be going by (or at least want to go by even if not allowed)