Stirring up views about culs-de-sac

The Times today has an article and an editorial about culs-de-sac, based on the draft Manual for Streets. It suggests that the government (meaning the consultants who are still consulting on the government's behalf) 'is calling the cul-de-sac's bluff.'

I'm old enough to remember when the Times was a newspaper, so I was not surprised at what looks like shoddy journalism which, for example, in both pieces completely misrepresents Richard Jackson’s US research into sprawl, walkability, and bodyweight (mentioned in the Manual para 5.3.3).

Two things I'd quite like to see: (i) some comparative research into sociability and connections with people beyond the street, in culs-de-sac and through streets; (ii) efforts to redesign through streets on the scale of culs-de-sac so as to promote opportunities for play, walking and sociability. And a question: not everyone can live within buggy-pushing distance of a 'centre' (shops, clinic, post office, cafe etc) so what are the arguments against their preferred choice of environment? People like culs-de-sac because most of the rest of street design has handed the street as a public space over to the car. MfS is part of the movement to change that; but maybe while arguments about car use feature strongly in the debate, as they should, considerations of social exclusivity in pseudo-enclaves don't, because we lack the sociological research.

There does seem to be a “culs-de-sac bad, grids good” mentality around among professionals at the moment which is going to oversimplify the arguments grotesquely if we’re not careful. Judging by  a BBC Radio London programme this morning, at least there's a debate starting, albeit a rather crude one. Fewer culs-de-sacs, in more defined circumstances, yes. More attention paid to density in urban centres, yes. And more home zones bringing down the scale of through streets and blocks, definitely. But allowing a message to get out that MfS is there to stamp out culs-de-sac might prove to be a bit of a public relations blunder.

Finally, this is a cue for something which hopefully the SOLUTIONS project will bring to the surface - if we ask people where they want to live, many say a quiet bungalow in a cul-de-sac. So we can cover the country in low density sprawl cos that's what they want. If we ask them if they want green space and breathable air - yes we'll have that too please. But you can't. Ahah, a public policy issue that affects everyone - time to bring this debate into the public arena in a responsible intelligible way.