Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 21, 2009
City "Cul De Sac" Is French For...
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:10 AM
..."dead end."
Actually "cul de sac" does not mean "dead end" in French. It means "bottom of the bag," but English-speakers use this Frenchish phrase to describe "dead ends" because everything sounds classier in French. (See: "ménage à trois," "faire des feuilles de rose.") Cul de sac and/or dead ends suck regardless. Save the planet: kill the suburbs. Via Sullivan.
1
A cul-de-sac doesn't have to be a dead end. The street where I grew up had a cul-de-sac in the middle.
Aerial from Google maps:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_…
Aerial from Google maps:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_…
3
D'accord. Alons y.
You can't do this stuff if you spend all your money on a $4 billion, oops $8 billion two mile bored tunnel for cars not transit, and $200 million for 12 blocks on Mercer street, and starve trains, busses, transit, ped and bike stuff and the street life community ambience of the whole city.
Vraiment.
You can't do this stuff if you spend all your money on a $4 billion, oops $8 billion two mile bored tunnel for cars not transit, and $200 million for 12 blocks on Mercer street, and starve trains, busses, transit, ped and bike stuff and the street life community ambience of the whole city.
Vraiment.
5
I have friends that are moving to fucking Federal Way. I have tried to tell them it's a bad idea, but people want "a big fucking house" or a large apartment. Not that most of them use all that space or need that space.
But if you ask them, oh golly do they NEED it.
But if you ask them, oh golly do they NEED it.
6
Yep. The world would be a better place if we went back to horses and buggies, too. But it ain't gonna happen.
7
@4: Hilarious -- good catch.
@3: Your comment has to do with Culs-de-sac....oh, just another cranky tunnel post-- fuck you.
@3: Your comment has to do with Culs-de-sac....oh, just another cranky tunnel post-- fuck you.
9
You can't post a long link unless you register, Miss M.
What the charming filmlet neglects to mention is that "new urbanism" is thirty years old, and by every conceivable measure is a grotesque failure. There are literally ZERO examples of successful new urbanist town developments, and and endless string of failed projects that are identical to, or worse than, the traditional suburbs they claim to be supplanting.
New Urbanism is philosophically flawed; you CANNOT build the kinds of neighborhoods they champion from scratch. Neighborhoods do not come about as a result of planning; they never have and they never will. Too many uncontrollable variables are in play; how are you going to get all these terrific schools, shops (what kind of shops?), pubs, cafes, etc., within a five-minute walk? You don't just need buildings; you need shopkeepers and publicans and school boards. These things cannot be arranged by fiat; they have to WANT TO MOVE IN THERE, which means the spaces have to be useful, they have to be affordable, and the businesspeople have to be convinced they'll make money.
New Urbanists never talk about grubby stuff like this. Instead, they talk about dreamy nostalgic trivia like porches and parks -- always lots and lots of parks. Parks always look pretty in the watercolors. They sometimes talk about changing zoning laws, which is an important first step -- the essential conditions of walkable neighborhoods are illegal for new construction -- but they never get further than "we oughtta".
The most prominent New Urbanist in the world today is probably Peter Calthorpe. His signature project in the northwest is Northwest Landing, a Weyerhauser company town built from scratch down by Dupont. As "new urbanism", it strikes all the right chords; as reality, it is LAUGHABLE. It's WORSE than Redmond, not better. And this is the best that new urbanism can do.
Look at this shit: http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/WA3286/
More...
What the charming filmlet neglects to mention is that "new urbanism" is thirty years old, and by every conceivable measure is a grotesque failure. There are literally ZERO examples of successful new urbanist town developments, and and endless string of failed projects that are identical to, or worse than, the traditional suburbs they claim to be supplanting.
New Urbanism is philosophically flawed; you CANNOT build the kinds of neighborhoods they champion from scratch. Neighborhoods do not come about as a result of planning; they never have and they never will. Too many uncontrollable variables are in play; how are you going to get all these terrific schools, shops (what kind of shops?), pubs, cafes, etc., within a five-minute walk? You don't just need buildings; you need shopkeepers and publicans and school boards. These things cannot be arranged by fiat; they have to WANT TO MOVE IN THERE, which means the spaces have to be useful, they have to be affordable, and the businesspeople have to be convinced they'll make money.
New Urbanists never talk about grubby stuff like this. Instead, they talk about dreamy nostalgic trivia like porches and parks -- always lots and lots of parks. Parks always look pretty in the watercolors. They sometimes talk about changing zoning laws, which is an important first step -- the essential conditions of walkable neighborhoods are illegal for new construction -- but they never get further than "we oughtta".
The most prominent New Urbanist in the world today is probably Peter Calthorpe. His signature project in the northwest is Northwest Landing, a Weyerhauser company town built from scratch down by Dupont. As "new urbanism", it strikes all the right chords; as reality, it is LAUGHABLE. It's WORSE than Redmond, not better. And this is the best that new urbanism can do.
Look at this shit: http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/WA3286/
11
Culs-de-sac is ridiculous. Once it's an American English word, it takes an English plural: cul-de-sacs, stadiums, pajamas.
12
I am pretty the buildings they show are going to have to be much taller if they actually want that kind of density. A five minute walk is about a quarter mile. So that gives an area around such thing, lets me generous and make it a square a half mile on a side, of about .25 sqmi. Lets say you want open a pub and hope to get maybe 50-100 people a night. You're going to need at least a couple thousand in that area especially if you want it to support other restaurants and businesses, which gives you density of up to 10,000 a square miles.
That is not a bad thing, not at all, but it means that people are going to have to get more comfortable with height. Places where this already exists, like New York, have densities over 10,000 a sqmi, with New York at over 25,000.
That is not a bad thing, not at all, but it means that people are going to have to get more comfortable with height. Places where this already exists, like New York, have densities over 10,000 a sqmi, with New York at over 25,000.
13
You should take a vacation to Buenos Aires. It's a big (huge!) dense city. Very European in most parts, very walkable, with stores, cafes, pubs, grocery stores, delis, churches, all five minutes away. Nice subway system, suburban trains and huge bus system. And more cars than you have ever seen. Ever in your entire life, all in one place. They have built 8, 12 and 16-lane boulevards for cars running right through the heart of the city. Not only cars, but pollution and car noise. It's ranked one of the loudest cities on the planet due to cars. It can almost drive you insane. Lesson: it takes more than density and the eradication of culs-de-sac.
14
Culs-de-sac rule! I live on one and love that the only cars that drive by my house are the ones of my neighbors. Why would anybody want to live in a building with fifty other lost souls when they could have their own house with privacy in the burbs? Oh...because they want to be seen. I prefer to raise my family quietly with a like minded community. Let the high school kids have their apts. and cheep beer.
15
I used to live in an apartment tower with the wonderful density you all love. The residents came and went; most of them didn't give a shit about anyone else or the neighborhood. The common areas of the building were often trashed, and the noise went on until 2 a.m.
So yes, I'm very happy to go home to my modest (much smaller than Dan Savage's house, I assure you), quiet home in Kirkland, with its beautiful downtown with shops and bars and galleries, and its waterfront parks and ballfields and Performance Center. I can get any number of buses to work. And contrary to the image portrayed here, most of my neighbors work right here on the Eastside, not in Seattle.
So while I agree that sprawling subdivisions in Federal Way or Lynnwood are not the answer, there should be a place for people -- particularly families with children -- who don't want to live in a crowded city neighborhood.
So yes, I'm very happy to go home to my modest (much smaller than Dan Savage's house, I assure you), quiet home in Kirkland, with its beautiful downtown with shops and bars and galleries, and its waterfront parks and ballfields and Performance Center. I can get any number of buses to work. And contrary to the image portrayed here, most of my neighbors work right here on the Eastside, not in Seattle.
So while I agree that sprawling subdivisions in Federal Way or Lynnwood are not the answer, there should be a place for people -- particularly families with children -- who don't want to live in a crowded city neighborhood.
16
@13, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The number of cars worldwide is going to increase from 800 million to 3.5 billion in the next couple of decades. For every four-story building that gets built in Seattle, a hundred thousand cul-de-sacs, detached houses, freeway miles, strip malls, etc. etc. get built in the developing world.
19
dead end: a street is simply cut off bluntly, either by signage or by a physical barrier (e.g. trees, gully, etc.)
cul-de-sac : a short paved street that dead-ends in a round area easy for cars to turn around in, bordered by largish bourgeois homes
cul-de-sac : a short paved street that dead-ends in a round area easy for cars to turn around in, bordered by largish bourgeois homes
21
Where are all the street people, panhandlers and homeless folks in the new urbans? Shipped to the suburbs, I presume?
22
I'm sure Will also says "campi" instead of "campuses", "soprani" instead of "sopranos", and "arenae" instead of "arenas", but he's wrong.
23
@11/22 .. Oh rilly? And what of "agents provocateur" then? Hmm?
And yes, in modern french "Cul" is slang for "Ass". As in "Suce mon cul, sale bite!" (Suck my ass, [you] dirty cock!).
So @10 is close, it translates directly as Ass of the bag
And yes, in modern french "Cul" is slang for "Ass". As in "Suce mon cul, sale bite!" (Suck my ass, [you] dirty cock!).
So @10 is close, it translates directly as Ass of the bag
24
premierement, it is-cul-de-sac plural culs-de-sac, and we do not forget les traits d'union.
Cul has always been since the 17th century (cf les fourberies de Scapin) a popular word for ass, as in je vais te brouter le cul, saloppe... I'll eat your ass bitch... which is always a turn on
Cul has always been since the 17th century (cf les fourberies de Scapin) a popular word for ass, as in je vais te brouter le cul, saloppe... I'll eat your ass bitch... which is always a turn on
25
@22 - no, nobody does that. Other than my Italian friends.
Maybe you should have gone to a real college ...
Maybe you should have gone to a real college ...
26
Will, you are apparently unaware that Latin and Italian are different. The college one attends can't compensate for one's innate stupidity and ignorance of facts -- willful ignorance, I'd say. You are a stone cold moron.
27
Exactly. New Urbanism also proposes to have different densities houses and apartments, rail AND bus... But everyone I know in the suburbs would sweat bullets to be located near apartments (aka low income housing). New Urbanism is like, a pretty dreamland that I would want, but it ignores socioeconomic stratification and lots of other problems. The only new urbanist area I can think of is Seaside, Florida or whatever, which is just a rich resort town.
28
Seaside and Celebration both. And both are grotesque flops. Seaside, the masterwork of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, the planners who started the "new urbanist" movement, is a joke: nobody lives there, as it's almost entirely second homes, mansions really, for the ultra-rich. It's a fake from top to bottom. When push comes to shove, New Urbanism means cutesy porches and railings and little towers and rich golfers' wives driving their carts to and from the jewelry boutiques. It's no accident that "The Truman Show" was filmed here.
Celebration, FL, is even more ridiculous: a corporate town built by Disney to evoke a ludicrously false small-town nostalgia, complete with stage-managed productions involving fake snow on the town center.
These are the people that New Urbanists want to invite to "fix" our dreadful suburbs. But guess what? Suburbs aren't necessarily broken. There's more diversity in Crossroads Mall in Bellevue than in every New Urbanist project ever dreamed, put together.
Celebration, FL, is even more ridiculous: a corporate town built by Disney to evoke a ludicrously false small-town nostalgia, complete with stage-managed productions involving fake snow on the town center.
These are the people that New Urbanists want to invite to "fix" our dreadful suburbs. But guess what? Suburbs aren't necessarily broken. There's more diversity in Crossroads Mall in Bellevue than in every New Urbanist project ever dreamed, put together.
29
cul-de-sac is in fact French for dead end. They use it the same way.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdryk/35184…
Also, @13, if you think BBAA has a remotely comparable number of vehicle miles per capita as Seattle you are off your rocker. What it lacks is emissions laws and catalytic converters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdryk/35184…
Also, @13, if you think BBAA has a remotely comparable number of vehicle miles per capita as Seattle you are off your rocker. What it lacks is emissions laws and catalytic converters.
30
Where did the makers of this video get the idea that these suburban areas do not contain stores, schools, doctors, jobs, etc. within walking distance of one's house? Also, as evident by the suburb that I live in (I do admit that the place i live sucks, but i'm kind of stuck here for the time being), the fact that a store/school/salon/whatever is within walking distance doesn't mean that people are going to walk there. If you're an asshole with a big ugly fucking Hummer or you have some shiny sports car you want to show off, you're going to just drive the mile to the store. I guess the point i'm trying to make here is that building a cute little community with some cute little shops isn't somehow going to magically cut down pollution and traffic and make people less fucking fat.
Furthermore, a lot of people seem to automatically link "suburb" with "urban sprawl". You can't always lump the two together. For instance, the city i live in is indeed a suburb of a larger city, but it does not contain the strip malls, shopping malls, and fast food chains that are typical of urban sprawl. It's also been around for a while, unlike some other suburbs that have popped up only a few decades ago. I am not trying to defend the pretentious douchebags that inhabit this place I live, but I will not accuse them of contributing to urban sprawl. I'll even admit that there are about 1326784 culs-de-sacs around here, but what the fuck? It's just a goddamn cul-de-sac. Get over it.
I have a feeling that most of the people who would live in these New Urbanist communities are probably rich assholes anyway, so they're not much better than the rich assholes who live where I live.
Furthermore, a lot of people seem to automatically link "suburb" with "urban sprawl". You can't always lump the two together. For instance, the city i live in is indeed a suburb of a larger city, but it does not contain the strip malls, shopping malls, and fast food chains that are typical of urban sprawl. It's also been around for a while, unlike some other suburbs that have popped up only a few decades ago. I am not trying to defend the pretentious douchebags that inhabit this place I live, but I will not accuse them of contributing to urban sprawl. I'll even admit that there are about 1326784 culs-de-sacs around here, but what the fuck? It's just a goddamn cul-de-sac. Get over it.
I have a feeling that most of the people who would live in these New Urbanist communities are probably rich assholes anyway, so they're not much better than the rich assholes who live where I live.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS