Suburban Nation - Andres Duany [78]
Whether or not they are justified, Nimbys can be effective barriers to community connectivity, which explains why many new town plans have relatively few entrances and exits. When refused access to neighboring subdivisions, we instead try to place a few road easements or pedestrian paths in strategic locations, so that the neighbors have the option of changing their minds later.
Connectivity is also an important issue as it concerns highways and arterials. As discussed in Chapter 5, the concept of the highwayless town implies two basic rules: highways and arterials approaching neighborhoods should skirt them rather than split them; and when they do come into contact with a neighborhood, they should take on low-speed geometries. Unfortunately, this contradicts current conventions. We battle over these rules in almost every development we work on, thanks to public works directors who prioritize traffic volume over neighborhood viability. Two of our projects in the Midwest alone ran up against the same problem: a municipal plan that jammed a major arterial straight through the middle of a new neighborhood to connect low-density suburbia to empty farmland. In anticipation of future traffic—traffic that will be generated only by this new roadway construction—we were forced to rend these neighborhoods in two. In Middleton Hills, Wisconsin, the result is a main street that is much too wide, an unpleasant sea of asphalt. In Ames, Iowa, a planned four-lane arterial was converted to two lanes at our request, and switched back again to four the minute we left town.
A skirmish lost to outdated standards: the Middleton Hills store, seen across its oversized street
When faced with a major road, how should a neighborhood respond? That depends on whether the road is designed as a civic thoroughfare or as an automotive sewer. When it is properly detailed as an avenue or a main street—as is appropriate within the neighborhood—or as a parkway or boulevard at the neighborhood edge, the thoroughfare becomes a worthy setting for buildings and will benefit aesthetically from their presence. Princeton, New Jersey, has just such a main street—a delightful collection of shops fronting a major regional arterial—and in Kansas City’s Country Club District, expensive estates directly face a heavily trafficked roadway. Seen to best advantage across deep lawns, these houses provide motorists with a grand entry into the city.
Only when noxious, high-speed traffic is inevitable should a road face the backs of houses. If a developer resorts to this solution, he must build a wall as well, or the backyards become uninhabitable. Since most major roads are designed to create high-speed traffic, the “sound wall” is the standard solution in the new suburbs.
The ruling principle is that as long as the road is designed with low-speed geometries, traffic generally treats the neighborhood the way that the neighborhood treats it. Friendly house fronts tell drivers to slow down, while blank walls and house backs tell them to speed up. An intermediate solution, appropriate for roads of moderate speed, is to face the road with the short ends of the blocks, so that it is met with the sides of houses, with a deep lawn as an additional buffer. Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills is configured this way. Every block ends on the boulevard, resulting in an intersection every 300 feet or less. Such frequent spacing can raise the hackles of the traffic engineers, who tend to want much wider spacing between intersections, so that cars can travel at higher speeds. These engineers must be reminded of the difference between a boulevard and a highway, and that the latter has no place in residential areas. cz.
MAKING THE MOST OF A SITE
Modern development is notorious for its unique approach to nature, typically: level the site first, design it later. This attitude has been the rule rather than the exception