The cul-de-sac's one redeeming quality: Spaces for children

Public Spaces

The cul-de-sac's one redeeming quality: Spaces for children

by David Alpert • June 3, 2010 11:42 am

My wife and I both grew up on cul-de-sacs.* These popular elements of 20th-century housing subdivisions have come under considerable criticism. However, there's a lot we can learn from their biggest success: providing safe and visible spaces for children to play largely unsupervised.

Photo by Gamma Ray Productions.

We've discussed the flaws of the cul-de-sac before. By limiting street connections through a subdivision, they force all traffic onto major arterials, creating congestion and leading cities and counties to constantly widen them, making them even less pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly.

It's much harder to walk or bike to other houses, to school or the store when the only route is a very long one, especially requiring travel on a major arterial. Buses have to take circuitous routes or stop far from most houses. Snowplows, emergency vehicles, and other municipal vehicles have to follow longer routes at greater cost.

However, while urbanists and municipal officials aren't fans of the cul-de-sac, many people who grew up on one loved it, at least until they were teenagers. Cul-de-sacs provide one major advantage over standard grids: a better environment for kids' play. In the new book What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs, a collection of essays pondering Jacobs' ideas in the modern day, Clare Cooper Marcus argues that the New Urbanist push for street grids over cul-de-sacs neglects the needs of children.

Kids playing in a cul-de-sac. Photo by alaskanent on Flickr.

My wife loved growing up on her cul-de-sac. Almost all houses had kids around the same age.

They played roller hockey and held bike races on the low-traffic street. They played kickball in front yards, unconcerned that it would be dangerous if the ball rolled into the street. They played flashlight tag in the cul-de-sac and around the houses, with the parents confident it was safe because someone could always see kids from their window.

I grew up on a cul-de-sac, too, but didn't enjoy it nearly so much. I did learn to bike in the cul-de-sac, but mainly played in our front or rear yard. One reason was that there were relatively few houses around our cul-de-sac (4), as our neighborhood had much larger lots. The houses were also set far back from the street, meaning parents couldn't see the cul-de-sac from their kitchen windows.

Kids used to play in the street on grids, too—my dad grew up in the first-wave suburb of Lynbrook, New York, on a rectangular street grid, and would play street hockey. Kids even used to play on the streets of Manhattan. But the cycle of rising traffic and widening of roads made streets into less hospitable places for children, while parents became more protective at the same time.

Cul-de-sacs may work great for smaller children, but as children get older, they prefer the mobility of being able to walk or bike to see their friends, even friends who aren't next door, and to get to stores, bowling alleys, arcades, skate parks, or wherever teens congregate.

The solution is not to continue the domination of cul-de-sacs, but to design other, even better spaces for children. Marcus points to developments that use "shared outdoor space," where houses cluster around large, common yards visible from all houses. Essentially, these are cul-de-sacs but not used for transportation. Many suburban cohousing projects follow this model.

"Garden side" of some Greenbelt homes. Photo by Matt Johnson.

Many new developments are building these spaces, but they're not new. In fact, many of the earliest suburban models had shared green space, including one of our region's planning icons, Greenbelt, Maryland.

Old Greenbelt, the original 1937 "garden city", has two doors to every house: a "service side," facing the roadway, and a "garden side," facing green space covered with gardens, play areas, pedestrian and bike paths, and more.

Essentially, Greenbelt has two "grids": the roadway grid for cars, and the garden grid for people. Residents walk to the stores (centrally located and connected via pedestrian and bike paths) along this garden grid, creating "eyes on the street," just without motor vehicles, and facilitating social interaction.

Matt Johnson wrote, "I regard it as the most tragic of missed opportunities that we were unable to build America's suburbs the way we built Greenbelt. Unlike other suburbs, Greenbelt does not suffer from a lack of interaction (Bowling Alone) or a lack of alternative transportation modes."

Blocks of townhouses (like in central Washington) or closely-spaced single-family houses (like much of Arlington) are great development patterns for almost all ages, but unless designed right, they don't fully accommodate families with small children. Parks are great, but parents need to actively transport kids to the park and watch them while there (or make arrangements with other parents). The cul-de-sac, shared green space, Greenbelt-style "garden side," or other land use patterns allow for kids to play safely while parents take care of other responsibilities at home.

Woonerf sign. Photo by anabananasplit on Flickr.

Still, most areas are already built and lack shared green spaces. What can we do? Marcus suggests the woonerf, the street that puts pedestrians first and allows traffic but only at slow speeds and with design cues that clearly tell drivers they are guests rather than owners of this space.

That could return many neighborhood grid streets to their function when my dad was a child, as spaces where children play with breaks for the occasional car. Game on!

Tonight's ReThink Montgomery session, with Joan Almon of Alliance for Childhood, will discuss "how planners can design and build spaces that make it easy for children to be active." The Alliance argues that children need at least 60 minutes a day of undirected play time, but currently get only 12.6 minutes per day. We mustn't neglect children as we work together to improve urban and suburban neighborhoods.

* Some will insist that the plural of cul-de-sac is "culs-de-sac," but I don't like it.

40 comments

Tags: Greenbelt, Maryland, public spaces, road connectivity, youth

Fairfax City needs inviting public spaces, not just pretty ones (Sep 18, 2009)
It takes a village: why walkable urbanism is good for adolescents (Mar 2, 2009)
DC's odd-shaped public spaces needn't be awkward or neglected (Jul 24, 2009)
The quotable Rollin Stanley (Jun 10, 2010)
What's green and fun in the spring? A Greenbelt bike tour, a Dupont green festival, and bike fundraisers (Apr 6, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I grew up in detached-single-family-home north Arlington. Our neighborhood was full of kids of elementary school age, that was just the demographics back then. I don't think there's a single kid in that neighborhood now. I really don't every remember having to go to a park to play, unless it was sports or some organized thing like Arlington summer camp. Doubt they even have that anymore.

But we got along fine; we hopped fences to go to each others house to play. Cutting through anybody's yard was cool because we knew everybody, even the people with no kids. It was like a neighborhood without any boundaries. We played in the streets too. Through-streets without any traffic calming, not just dead-ends. The traffic calming features were all the kids in the street on bikes or skateboards. That was the message to slow down, or else you got a bunch of dirt clods in your window.

by Lou on Jun 3, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

I lived here, we played touch football and hockey in the street. It was not a cul-de-sac, though neighbor kids had more freedom in the street where they lived on culs-de-sac.

Then again, the whole neighborhood was kind of one big cul-de-sac.

View Larger Map

by Michael Perkins on Jun 3, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report

I am going to agree with Lou, I grew up in DC and we played in the streets all the time. We also had DCPR playgrounds, local schools, access to Rock Creek and other green spaces to roam and use.

Cul de Sacs are planning killers, and in this case, thinking about the kids also means teaching all in the community how to share space and interact without necessarily separating the various uses.

As kids get older, it is better for them to be able to walk, bike or board to the library, school or the local store. Cul de sacs make this potentially more difficult, and if there are a lack of sidewalks, more dangerous.

Virginia is doing the right thing by rethinking this approach to neighborhood development.

by Andrew on Jun 3, 2010 12:41 pm • link • report

Thank you for a thoughtful article! I hope that woonerfs gain momentum as we work to revitalize cities. And in my back alley in one of DC's typical rowhouse neighborhoods, a bit of landscaping and clean-up would make it a woonerf, but someone owns a portion of it!

by Allison on Jun 3, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

David,

Nice thoughts. I agree that we need more play spaces for children. I also agree that the design of urban streets and other public areas is an important way of creating such play spaces. Though, I think parent's perceptions of public safety are ultimately going to be the key to increasing the amount of time that children spend undirected. That's a difficult issue and often something that design cannot fully address.

One note about grid streets as play spaces, they still function that way from time to time, as I witnessed on a recent trip to Manhattan: http://wordsofwitte.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/streetball-a-scene-from-new-york/.

by Pete Witte on Jun 3, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

The Kentlands/Lakelands solves this problem in two ways - one intentional, one maybe not-so-much:

Intentional - a family is never very far from a green, open space. We are a 7 minute walk from a great playground next to a lawn that always has kids throwing a ball around on Sat. afternoon. There is a "tot lot" (only children under 12) about a 10 minute walk from my family. Also, the Lakelands designed a number of shared green spaces (the Kentlands less so)

Unintentional? - Just about all townhouse (and even many detached house) garages are in the back as part of alleyways that run through the Kentlands/Lakelands. These alleyways are prime space for biking, skateboarding, etc. Also, since yards are pretty small, the kids get together in shared spaces very often.

These neo-urban solutions seem to work well.

by Gooch on Jun 3, 2010 12:48 pm • link • report

I distinctly remember playing soccer in the wide-streets around my parents' old house. The goalies on either side were in charge of yelling "CAAAAAAAAAAR!" whenever one rounded the corner.

by PJ on Jun 3, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report

I grew up on a woonerf in Breda, NL. It wasn't what it's made up to be. The reason why it was pleasant was that they'd created many short dead-end corners, essentially cul-de-sacs, as shown in the Gmap. There would be few cars there.

View Larger Map

The good thing was that there were many walking and biking shortcuts. It was very clear in the design that biking was the favored mode of transportation. Biking was generally faster than driving a car, because cars had to go around many things that bike paths would cut you straight through. Psychologically, that's important because it takes an argument away to whine to your parents to bring you somewhere. And the same arguments even goes for adults. If it's a nice day, they're much more likely to bike than to drive.

I now live in a place with many cul-de-sacs. However, I don't see kids playing there. In my neighborhoods, kids play on the grassy areas and on the basketball fields.

I guess there's nothing with wrong with cul-de-sacs. What's wrong is the limited-access superblocks that they are built in. We've had a post before showing medium size blocks with many tiny cul-de-sacs. That's fine.

by Jasper on Jun 3, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report

Kids even used to play on the streets of Manhattan.

Kids are still playing on the street grid of Brooklyn. I was walking in Ft. Greene on a visit to NYC last weekend and two eight-or-so-year-olds were playing catch with baseball mitts in the street, occasionally shouting "car" as one drove by (though it was a low-traffic street). It was a very endearing scene.

by jfruh on Jun 3, 2010 1:11 pm • link • report

Speaking about those bike short cuts in Breda. Whenever I get through that area now (parents have moved on), in a car, I have to really think hard on how to get anywhere, because my mind is programmed to think from a bike perspective. Biking is still easy.

by Jasper on Jun 3, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report

I find it puzzling that you urbanists hold up Arlington as the apotheosis of all things good in urban planning--and yet Arlington has RECENTLY created culs-de-sac (or what the rest of the country calls courts) by blocking off streets when the County government has some crazy reason to do so.

For example: just north of the Ballston Metro, they blocked off car/bus traffic on N. Stuart, N. Utah, N. Vermont, N. Taylor several years ago when the condos there were built--creating four new courts/culs de sac.

by JB on Jun 3, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report

I should add that my street was a block from the border with McLean, so we had our share of cul-de-sacs nearby. They just didn't seem to be a feature that kids needed or sought out as a destination. In fact the kids from the end of the grid were more isolated from the rest of us by the distance.

by Lou on Jun 3, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

Another local example of this type of development is Falkland Chase (1936-8) in downtown Silver Spring. They went one step farther and put the cars in parking lot clusters. (maybe the original had even less parking?) This means both the front an back of the houses of common green space.

As a modern opposite example, I was annoyed at the wasted chances for making good family homes at http://www.courtsofwoodside.com/
They build family size townhomes, but use also all the common space asphalt leaving almost no grass accessible to most of the homes.

by Dan on Jun 3, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report

@JB

Blocking off vehicular through-traffic as you cite in Arlington is very different from the prototypical suburban cul de sac mentioned here.

by Alex B. on Jun 3, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

All the kids play on the brick streets around Patterson Park in Baltimore City near my house. With the brick streets the cars can't go fast enough to hit anybody. Sadly, the city keeps trying to pave over the brick streets instead of maintaining them. Cars go faster on the paved streets so the kids don't play there. Then the residents complain about the speeding and the city puts in speed bumps, and then people complain about the speed bumps. Everyone liked the bricks better.

Kids also play in Patterson Park, which is like 150 acres. We need more large parks like that.

by Lee on Jun 3, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

Finding ways to promote bike use for children, rather than for commuters, would probably improve quality of life for local residents more.

Of course "kids" in parts of the DC area means street crime and harassment, so I can see why that approach might not be popular. But I remember longing for sidewalks as a kid so I could get on the big road (speed limit 45) and go somewhere.....

by charlie on Jun 3, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

Alex B.: How is it different? Both represent blocking off a public street, which benefits the residents of that street (less traffic, noise) but not the rest of the community, who are forced to find alternate routes.

That solitude and freedom from traffic is why homes on courts/dead-end streets/culs de sac tend to sell for more than those on regular streets and for WAY more than those on busy thoroughfares.

by JB on Jun 3, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

@JB: The way they blocked off access still allows walking and biking as if the street is not blocked at all. Cars can't go through, but it doesn't disrupt the grid as far as non-motor transport goes. Easy access to the Metro (which is at N Stuart, a block and a half south of where JB is talking about).

by Michael Perkins on Jun 3, 2010 2:18 pm • link • report

@JB
The distinction is that pedestrians and bicyclists can still travel through the ends of those closed streets. The "grid" still exists for everyone except automotive transport. And unlike suburban culs-de-sac, in this case, because the street grid is already very robust, drivers don't have to drive quite as far out of the way.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 3, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

Matt/Michael: These Ballston neo-courts block access to buses as well as to cars.

by JB on Jun 3, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

@JB
Yes. Buses are motorized (automotive) and they are also blocked.

I'm not as familiar with Arlington as I am with DC and Maryland, so can you clarify something for me: Were there buses on these streets prior to the automotive closures?

Regardless of whether there were or were not buses on those streets, the distance between the nearest two through streets (North Stafford, North Glebe Road) is 0.3 miles. That means someone exactly halfway between would have a walk of only 0.15 miles to the nearest north-south through street (presumably with buses). That's not very far, especially considering that these streets are all within the Ballston Station quarter-mile radius.

There's nothing wrong with having streets that are closed to motorized traffic just because buses are also blocked. Buses don't need to travel on every street. And as long as there are nearby viable alternatives for transit (and for private motor vehicles), there's nothing wrong or undesirable about automotive street closures.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 3, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

The blockages off of Fairfax Drive in Ballston are there for the sole purpose of keeping all of the condo residents who park in the garage under their building from cutting through the neighborhoods towards Washington Blvd. It's a no-brainer and entirely appropriate.

by Lou on Jun 3, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report

Matt: I don't know if there were buses on these streets before. However, have you ever tried to walk on Glebe Road? Neither safe nor enjoyable, unless you like speeding cars.

Lou, that would be a laudable goal, but the problem is that there are condos and townhouses on the other side of each little vegetation barrier that forms the end of the court! So those residents can cut through those neighborhoods and pretty much have to if they're headed north of Wash Blvd by only a few blocks.

I love courts. My friend grew up on one and had the same great experience Mrs. Alpert had as a kid. My beef is that these Ballston neo-courts were available for use by everyone before, and now they're not.

It also means that the people who live in detached homes on the remaining through streets (Utah and Stafford) have to tolerate even more vehicular traffic than before these things were created. Not exactly fair. Especially since they're paying way more in property taxes than the folks in the condos/townhouses.

But I'm sure I'm the only one who thinks that's a problem.

by JB on Jun 3, 2010 2:47 pm • link • report

JB, it's a matter of the density. The residential units south of the blockages are high-density, multi-story buildings. My friend lives in the one at the end of Stuart behind the 7-11. It has 4 levels of parking under it, and it's one of the smaller buildings along those streets. The townhome style neighborhoods north of the blockages probably contribute less cars to the neighborhood than all the multi-story buildings do, despite covering much more land. You seem to know the area; walk around in the evening through the townhome section. It's a wonderfully peaceful neighborhood because of the lack of traffic, yet just a block or two from Metro and the higher density area.

by Lou on Jun 3, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report

@JB
And can I just point out that except for Utah, none of the other streets were through streets anyway. They were all severed by the bad kind of cul-de-sac (the kind that doesn't allow pedestrians or bicyclists through) when I-66 was constructed, just 2 or 3 blocks of the automotive street closures you object to.

So traffic was already being diverted onto the larger streets, including bus traffic. Except for Utah, none of the other streets would have been good candidates for transit.

And buses could still easily use Utah/Vermont because the closures on those streets are on opposite sides of 11th.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 3, 2010 3:02 pm • link • report

*Should be "just 2 or 3 blocks north of the automotive street closures...

by Matt Johnson on Jun 3, 2010 3:03 pm • link • report

I've lived in the area for 15 years now, and the Ballston cul-de-sacs mentioned have been that way as long as I can remember. It's not as if its a new thing.

They're completely permeable on foot and by bike, and I doubt any of those streets was ever used as a bus route. They are slightly annoying from an automotive perspective, but I can completely see the rationale for their design, and I don't think it detracts from urbanity at all, instead it improves it if anything.

by spookiness on Jun 3, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report

OK, riddle me this. Emperian Village (formerly Springhill Lake Apartments) is a huge garden-type apartment complex full of cul-de-sacs and little courtyards and whatnot. See http://tinyurl.com/364vfm7. (Note: the red "A" marker does not signify anything of interest to this discussion.)

So, why does the vast majority of Greenbelt crime take place in this one complex? Every week in the police blotter, it's the same darn street names, over and over again. Over this past weekend a 16-year-old girl was shot once in the head and killed.

I keep hearing that the layout of this complex makes it really easy for muggers, thieves and other criminals to run away and hide. Some of these buildings have "garden sides" with walkways and such. Other than the fact that Emperian is a rental place and the historic Old Greenbelt homes are privately owned, what makes one so bad and the other good?

by Greenbelt Gal on Jun 3, 2010 3:18 pm • link • report

Kids will play with whatever you give them no matter where they live. You give them a patch of rock-hard dirt, they'll play in it. You give them 3 branches and an empty beer bottle (and nothing else) they'll invent a game in 5 minutes. It's parents who need all these design spaces for their kids. The kids are all right.

by crin on Jun 3, 2010 3:32 pm • link • report

@ Greenbelt gal, maybe its the same few people committing crimes over and over.

by Bianchi on Jun 3, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report

Cul-de-sacs themselves are not the problem, subdivisions with only 1 or 2 outlets are.

by TXSteve on Jun 3, 2010 6:52 pm • link • report

Bit of Montgomery Village with a very high frequency of cul-de-sacs and "courts." Appears inescapable.

by sara on Jun 3, 2010 7:36 pm • link • report

Yep, and then imagine all the traffic funneled onto the loop road out to the arterials.

by TXSteve on Jun 3, 2010 8:11 pm • link • report

Families move into cul-de-sacs thinking they will be a safer place for their kids to play. However, in recent months, in the Greater Toronto Area, a couple of toddlers were kidding my family members who were backing out of the their driveways in their cars.

Fore me, one problem are the lack of sidewalks, so the kids end up walking and playing on the streets. The other problem, no straight line access to schools, shopping, or public transit. One needs a car to get milk, lottery ticket, whatever, instead of walking.

by W. K. Lis on Jun 4, 2010 10:50 am • link • report

I grew up in an area of Northern California with cul de sacs. Many of them were connected by walking/biking paths, so it was actually great. No through traffic, yet the cut-de-sacs didn't feel like isolated fingers, because there was a lot of pedestrian movement between them. And because the connections weres so direct, it encouraged walking and biking rather than vehicle use for shorter trips.

by SusanR on Jun 4, 2010 11:26 am • link • report

"The blockages off of Fairfax Drive in Ballston are there for the sole purpose of keeping all of the condo residents who park in the garage under their building from cutting through the neighborhoods towards Washington Blvd. It's a no-brainer and entirely appropriate."

I totally agree. A low density neighborhood may have a street grid, but if you introduce high density office/commercial and residential development next to it, suddenly the traffic volume and patterns change dramatically. Hence established neighborhoods often fight more development, even along adjacent arterial roads where development logically should go. It seems that Arlington County has tried to address that issue reasonably in Balston and Clarendon, by measures to funnel the new development traffic onto the arterial roads and minimize traffic spillover in the less dense neighborhoods. Bethesda has done some of that too, near Edgemoor. That approach perhaps should be explored in more places, not criticized. It's a way to have more development without putting a lot of the externalities onto adjacent neighborhoods.

by Jason on Jun 4, 2010 11:59 am • link • report

I've raised my kids on Capitol Hill for the last 13 years. One of the reasons we bought our townhouse was because of the very wide sidewalks and alley behind the house. So my kids (now 13, 10 and 7) have been playing catch, hopscotch, running in the sprinkler, etc. in front of our house and now they play basketball in the alley. Now my 13 yo walks to the metro to go to a movie, my older two walk to school by themselves and I walk the youngest to her school every day. From a design standpoint, I think the key is wider sidewalks, parking on the street and extended curbs to slow traffic and mini parks sprinkled liberally. I grew up in Reston VA, at the end of a pipestem and hated it. DC is a challenge for people raising kids, but ultimately the tradeoffs are worth it.

by gina a on Jun 4, 2010 4:21 pm • link • report

I'd love to see our many culs de sac connected by bike/ped trails to create a "garden grid." It would be a great improvement for the west end of Alexandria and for pretty much all of Fairfax.

by Jonathan Krall on Jun 4, 2010 5:11 pm • link • report

The areas I grew up in were on a grid street system and every few blocks along the grid there were small parks. We seldom played in the streets, my parents seemed to only rent houses on the through fares. We did live in a few areas where alleys existed and they were our network for getting around and staying out of the streets.

Local zoning could go a long way towards making neighborhoods more pedestrian and cycling friendly. Some areas I lived in the zoning boards won't issue a development permit until the infrastructure to support the development is in place, other places they just issue the permit to get the fees and let the developer do whatever they wish, usually with less than stellar results.

Aaron

by 2whls3spds on Jun 6, 2010 8:09 am • link • report

The cheapest solution would be some PSA's reminding drivers that streets and alleys belong to more than cars, some training for law enforcement in this regard, and some better enforcement of speeds. If cars went 5-15mph, instead of 25-35mph down many streets, and were respectful, there would be room for kids to play, and it would be safe.

by SJE on Jun 7, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report