Cul de Sacs: Bad for Kids?

by Lenore Skenazy (Subscribe to Lenore Skenazy's posts) Jan 12th 2010 12:00PM

Categories: Toddlers, Safety, Environment

Text Size:

Want to make your life saner, your kids safer, and your home worth more?

Don't buy on a cul de sac.

Wait -- aren't they the safest, surest bet around? Well, we used to think so. I grew up on one. But now that we've had about half a century to see how they affect things like traffic, neighborliness and, especially, kids, the new consensus is: FAIL. That's why Virginia is banning them, and towns across the country are doing the same.

The problem, says William Lucy, a professor of urban planning at the University of Virginia, is that most of us buy homes when our kids are young. We imagine them frolicking in the front yard, safe from the big, bad world.

In reality, maybe they frolic, maybe they don't -- when I visit my brother-in-law in suburban Chicago, the only people outside are lawn crews and the occasional leftover Halloween scarecrow. But the real point is that in the blink of an iPod, our moppets morph into teenagers. And if you live on a typical cul de sac, there is probably no way for them to walk to anything fun -- the movies, the mall. So either we are stuck chauffeuring them (that's why cul de sacs are so hard on moms), or they have to drive themselves, sometimes for miles, even to get a Slurpee. And the least safe place for teens to be is behind the wheel of a car.

Now, think of the way cul de sac after cul de sac empties into one, big access road. Usually those roads are wide and highway-like. Cars speed down them so fast, woe to any weirdo who wanted to walk to the grocery. But of course, that's usually a moot point, because in the newer developments, there aren't any sidewalks anyway. Result?

Flab!

Flabby kids and parents. Unlike our grandparents, we have no way of walking anywhere. And by the way, walking used to be a great way to meet the neighbors, too. Now everyone's sealed inside their house or a car (and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference).

Not that I hated my cul de sac growing up. Not at all. Then again, it was an older suburb where I could still walk to the drug store, or ride my bike along sidewalks to the library. (Yes, I was the nerdy kid who rode on the sidewalk.) Today's McSuburbs are so spread out, it takes a heap of time and gas to reach the rest of humanity. That's why those new 'burbs are the ones busting fastest, says Lucy, whose upcoming book is, "Foreclosing The Dream."

So if you want a safe spot to raise your kids where you're less likely to get financially reamed, fat, or lonely, consider a home on "the grid" -- any network of streets connected to each other and shopping. Teach your kids how to cross the street safely and you'll reap the rewards: More independence for them – and you. Less teen driving. Better property values!

And, when you really need it but don't feel like getting in the car: a Slurpee.

Related: Walkscore.com: How Does Your Neighborhood Rate?

Comments (12)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Marla 1-12-2010 @ 12:46PM

This is ridiculous.

StupidMetsFan 1-12-2010 @ 1:33PM

Cul de sacs aren't evil, it's just that they're not very well thought out and create sprawl. And unless you're in a city like New York or Boston, walking isn't an option in most places. Essentially the only places with "grids" like you speak of are said large cities, and those places aren't exactly the best places to raise a kid. There are exceptions, but not too many.

winger 1-12-2010 @ 1:56PM

This is complete nonsense.

Maureen 1-12-2010 @ 2:28PM

I guess it depends on where the cul de sac is. Our home is pretty old and we are on a tiny cul de sac. We are less than a 10 minute walk to the market and restaurants and about a 15 minute walk to the mall. We can also walk to school and a big park in about 5 minutes.
We love our street because the kids can ride their bikes and scooters around and around in relative safety.

SKL 1-12-2010 @ 4:31PM

It's not so much cul-de-sacs as the concentration of stuff in a few places. When I was a kid, I could easily walk to several schools, churches, corner stores, rec centers, and libraries. Now for my kids, the nearest park is a mile away (up and down steep hills), the nearest corner store, post box, and rec center are 2 miles, their future elementary school 3 miles, and the nearest library 4 miles. We do sometimes walk to the park, but it's quite a hike for 2 toddlers. As they get older, I will encourage them to ride their bikes to the various resources, but that only works half of the year in these parts. So yeah, while I like my location in many other ways, that aspect of it is a drag.

On the positive side, with cul-de-sacs, my tots can go on a nice walk without ever having to cross the street. If I could trust the neighbors not to run them over in their driveways . . . they are pretty short yet . . . .

m2 1-12-2010 @ 11:45PM

huh. wait, what?

so streets that intersect each other are better than nice little closed loops at the ends? Slurpees are closer that way?

beth 1-13-2010 @ 12:47PM

what? Okay, I grew up on a cul-de-sac that was slightly more isolated. However, the cul de sac we live on today has a small playground literally steps away, and a big park with playground, splash pad, and a soccer field a 5 minute walk away. There's also a complete strip mall 10 minutes away. It's all about location, sure, but the shape of a street has absolutely no bearing on its convenience. Drive off my cul de sac and onto one of the through streets and you'll in fact find you're farther away from things.

Is it cul de sacs you're against? Or is your issue with new suburban development? Because those two things - not the same

Laura 1-19-2010 @ 10:07AM

This is about the way the area is developed, not whether it's a cul de sac or a dead end. Our section of street leads to a plain old dead end, but one block up there's a cul de sac. They're GREAT places for kids AND teens - it's maybe a mile to the town core of this suburb, with shopping, movies, a library, etc. Sidewalks all the way. It's way less than that to the bus stop if you want to take the (FREE) town bus to those places; not as good exercise but very nice on a cold winter day. And that bus system hooks up to the wider area one (which does cost money) if they want to go to one of the major malls.

Cul de sacs aren't the problem. Poorly designed suburbs with too much sprawl, and poorly designed subdivisions and suburbs with no sidewalks, are the problem.

Mike Lanza 1-19-2010 @ 6:07PM

There is an additional "New Urbanist" complaint against cul-de-sacs that Lenore didn't mention. Cul-de-sacs significantly decrease through traffic of *all* kinds - car traffic as well as foot traffic and bicycle traffic. Thus, the scene outside a house on a cul-de-sac is almost completely dead unless one or two houses on the cul-de-sac are themselves incredible sources of activity. With zero or close to no foot or bike traffic, cul-de-sacs really are what my friends and I used to call these: "dead ends."

New Urbanists would like to change the *composition* of traffic in front of houses to limit or eliminate car traffic, but they like lots of foot and bike traffic.

I wrote a four-part series on Playborhood.com about a New Urbanist community I really like, with an emphasis on how it impacts kids' lives. To read these (I'm not permitted to put a link in here), Google "Playborhood" and "The Waters".

Alexis 1-22-2010 @ 8:59AM

Can I just point out that technically the correct plural of cul-de-sac is culs-de-sac?

I mean, not critical to the overall point, but as a grammar fan, it makes a difference to me.

j 2-04-2010 @ 11:34PM

That's just plain stupid thinking and the author really needs to describe their situation better...that's just one persons situation of many.
My cul-de-sac is about 200 yards long (8 homes) which then dumps right into the main road. I still have to walk on the main road at least 6 miles til I get to a store. If someone just wants to walk, the cul-de-sac is MUCH safer than walking on our main road which has no sidewalks, no shoulders, is very windy, has road kill everywhere, and the cars go too fast for the road. Walking the main road is crazy.
My cul-de-sac allows the neighbor hood kids to play safely in the street...something that cannot be done on a main road.
This was the stupidest article I have ever read and I can't believe I'm wasting my time commenting on it!

morgypants 5-26-2010 @ 8:31PM

First of the plural of cul-de-sac is culs-de-sac, something that someone who writes a whole article on the subject should at least know. I also think this is the most bogus article ever, I live in a large city, with plenty of thing in walking distance for "teens" and whatnot including plenty of bus stops which would get your child to their destination easily, and got me to mine many times when I was a teenager. Not only that, how many parents really throw a fit about "chauffeuring" their young teens around or wanting to know where they are going. This article not only poorly written, but bogus.