Sidelines

<Sidelines home » Archives » July 2006

cul-de-sacs
Does the government have some ulterior motive for denigrating cul-de-sacs in its much heralded "Manual for Streets". If the street is somewhere where children are expected to play and neighbours to chat then the cul-de-sac ticks the boxes. According to the Manual "The principle of integrated access and movement means the perimeter block is usually the most effective structure for residential neighbourhoods." That seems like big-word nonsense, and the following provides no evidence: "A block structure works in terms of ... [providing] overlooked routes." Why is a cul-de-sac any less overlooked? A block structure also "offers opportunities for enclosed private or communal gardens (or parking)". Enclosed communal gardens? Not something much seen outside Edwardian London. Finally it is claimed that cul-de-sacs "are inconvenient for pedestrians, cyclists and buses due to a dead-end movement framework". It's true that a bus straying onto a cul-de-sac will find its movement framework truly dead-ended. But a well designed cul-de-sac it not a dead-end for cyclists or walkers: it offers footpath ginnels between houses to adjacent streets: shortcuts that might make people think twice before driving to the nearby off-licence for pork-pies and tinnies.
[link]