OKC gets low marks in recent study on sprawl

[Just the facts]

I assume in the top picture you would want to live on one of the dead end streets because the houses on the thru streets see far more traffic than any house in the bottom picture. If you choose to live on a dead street I suggest you read up on the problems related to what has become known as Cul-de-sac kids. It isn't pretty.

[bchris02]

One thing about OKC compared to elsewhere is that most cities with as many centers of activity as we have here are much larger. I think the OKC metro could easily get to 2-2.5 million in population by infill only and still have plenty of quaint, suburban subdivisions. Future development should center around three focal points.

A) Downtown.
B) NW Expressway
C) Memorial/Gaillardia

There is no reason to keep building farther out for the simple sake of building farther out.

As for sidewalks, the 1950s seemed to be when they stopped being built, though many areas still built them after that. Go to Phoenix, AZ, a city not known for its density, and their suburban areas have adequate sidewalks. Its the same in Charlotte.

[Urbanized]

Sidewalks are unimportant when there is nothing to walk to. The biggest failing of the past 60 years was the absolute, iron-clad segregation of residential and commercial. A suburban neighborhood can be a fine place to live, but it is infinitely better when you can easily access some basics or even luxuries/entertainment on foot. The requirement to drive everywhere is what made the suburban dream less dreamy and led to the creation of JTF's afore-mentioned cul-de-sac kids, who don't have cars. And when they GET cars, heaven help us.

[Dennis Heaton]

I can't seem to find it right now, but I recall reading a study that showed that sidewalks reduced the number of pedestrian fatalities.

[Spartan]

One thing about OKC compared to elsewhere is that most cities with as many centers of activity as we have here are much larger. I think the OKC metro could easily get to 2-2.5 million in population by infill only and still have plenty of quaint, suburban subdivisions. Future development should center around three focal points.

A) Downtown.
B) NW Expressway
C) Memorial/Gaillardia

There is no reason to keep building farther out for the simple sake of building farther out.

As for sidewalks, the 1950s seemed to be when they stopped being built, though many areas still built them after that. Go to Phoenix, AZ, a city not known for its density, and their suburban areas have adequate sidewalks. Its the same in Charlotte.

Geez ever been to the south side??

[Plutonic Panda]

What does all this mean? I see people relocating to OKC in the thousands every month. I see the lowest unemployment in the country. I see no traffic congestion for the most part (except 8:00am & 5:00pm). I see one of the lowest costs of living in the country. I see companies calling us for relocation help into OKC and we are always on their short list. This is a place where people want to live and raise a family, including me.

+1

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe a visual reference will help. Here are two 1 sq. mile section of OKC. The green dots represent 4 ways intersections and the red dots represent dead-end streets. If you had to walk to a friends house which area do you think would be the easiest and fastest. If you had to drive to a friends house which do you think would be the easiest and fastest. Which area do you think can handle traffic better. Hint: The answers are all the same one.

Bad:

Honestly man, I like this one better.

[LocoAko]

What does all this mean? I see people relocating to OKC in the thousands every month. I see the lowest unemployment in the country. I see no traffic congestion for the most part (except 8:00am & 5:00pm). I see one of the lowest costs of living in the country. I see companies calling us for relocation help into OKC and we are always on their short list. This is a place where people want to live and raise a family, including me.

Why so defensive? No one is saying that OKC doesn't have low unemployment, low cost of living, etc. They're saying it sprawls. Which it does. All that "means" is that there are plenty of Americans who like sprawl, which should surprise no one...

[Jeepnokc]

So I spent some time looking at the cul-de-sac kid problem. Basically it boils down to when kids are teenagers, they don't walk to where they need to go because they are so far tucked into their cul-de-sac. The pros are that they are safer. I don't buy into this argument of teenagers walking everywhere versus being driven. If I still lived at either of my houses in Gatewood or Heritage Hills East, there isn't any teenage entertainment within walking distance of either place. I would still be driving them everywhere including school. They would be in private schools so none of their friends would be nearby but even if public schools, the middle school and high school serve such a large area that chances are their friends wouldn't be near either. There isn't anyway I would let my kid bike up to Penn Square Mall. Where I live now, my kids are constantly running or biking to the neighbors house down at the end of the street which is a little over a 1/4 mile away. They ride their bikes in the street and I don't have to be concerned about somebody racing from one stop sign to the next hitting them.

[Just the facts]

Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

[MustangGT]

Bingo. The base assumptions are fouled up. We have decentralized jobs. No way can we, or would we want to put all our jobs and people in one central location. Best to figure out how to work with what we have rather than attempt to cram our square peg in someone's theoretical round hole.

Absolutely. It is long past time we give a crap about what others think of us. We need to define ourselves and refuse to let out of state lick boots do it for us. If you do not currently live here you are miles behind the curve to start with. Internet connectivity only goes so far and it cannot give the feel aka ambience of what is going on right here right now.

[BoulderSooner]

Yet another case where corelation does not equal causation.

[Just the facts]

Yet anoth case where corelation does not equal causation.

Just saying that doesn't make it true. The linkage is well documented - you just need to have the courage to believe it. Alas, no one can make you believe it. That is something you have to find inside yourself.

As an example, I know it is from the government so you can just dismiss it out of hand, but for those who care....

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/problem.html

[BDP]

So I spent some time looking at the cul-de-sac kid problem. Basically it boils down to when kids are teenagers, they don't walk to where they need to go because they are so far tucked into their cul-de-sac. The pros are that they are safer. I don't buy into this argument of teenagers walking everywhere versus being driven. If I still lived at either of my houses in Gatewood or Heritage Hills East, there isn't any teenage entertainment within walking distance of either place. I would still be driving them everywhere including school. They would be in private schools so none of their friends would be nearby but even if public schools, the middle school and high school serve such a large area that chances are their friends wouldn't be near either. There isn't anyway I would let my kid bike up to Penn Square Mall. Where I live now, my kids are constantly running or biking to the neighbors house down at the end of the street which is a little over a 1/4 mile away. They ride their bikes in the street and I don't have to be concerned about somebody racing from one stop sign to the next hitting them.

I feel safer in the grid because acceleration can only occur for a block. There are always some nut jobs that may gun it from one intersection to another, but I know that in the disconnected suburban neighborhood I grew up in, the curvy lay out did nothing to slow anyone down. In fact, it made it more fun to race through with less required stops or intersections (not me though, of course).

While I'm not criticizing your lifestyle choice at all, I do find the default opinion that suburbs are better for kids and families a bit unfounded. I have a lot of friends with kids in large urban areas and I don't see how it's any worse for them or that they are denying their kids something. In fact, those kids get a ton of experiences I could have only dreamed of when I was growing up. I'll admit that I am the typical irrationally over-paranoid parent of today, but I wouldn't have any problem raising my son in an urban area. Then again, I lived in a large urban city after college and saw plenty of families, so maybe it's just not as foreign to me as it is to a lot of people who grew up here. Either way, I don't see either as better, safer, or more kid oriented. Just different.

[boitoirich]

The focus on gridded streets is still a bit off topic. Some places develop just fine using compact development and something called a fused grid. Basically, it combines Jeep's concerns with thru streets and JTF's desire for connectivity. To be honest, you two are really advocating for some of the same things when you really get down to it.

Jeep did mention that he still has to take his kid(s) places, which at bottom is actually an argument against sprawl. Because of our size, it is difficult and expensive to provide safe, reliable public transit that connects the entire city, and with reasonable headways. With compact development, transit is much cheaper and easier. I don't recall ever waiting much longer than 5-10 minutes for a bus in any dense city I've ever lived in. In fact, buses were often coming one right after the other, and sometimes two or three at a time. That made it easy for myself and my students (I taught English at a private high school) to get home anywhere in the city.

[Just the facts]

I feel safer in the grid because acceleration can only occur for a block.

It's not just about speed either, but traffic count. In the grid model traffic is dispersed across many more streets. In the first picture there are only 14 access points to the entire sq mile and only 2 roads that carry through traffic. Every car has to use one of these 14 access points and the vast majority have to use one of the 2 collector roads. In the second sq. mile there are 40 access points and since there are no dead end streets every road goes all the way through.

Anyhow, this is why cities with well connected streets scored better in this study.

[boitoirich]

The expectations I have out of PlanOKC are:

1) Limit sprawl.
2) Institute a Complete Streets program.
3) Eliminate failed Euclidian zoning in favor of a form-based code.

So many of of our livability goals (walkability, transit, placemaking, promoting active lifestyles, social capital) will be much easier to achieve with those policies in place.

[GaryOKC6]

Why so defensive? No one is saying that OKC doesn't have low unemployment, low cost of living, etc. They're saying it sprawls. Which it does. All that "means" is that there are plenty of Americans who like sprawl, which should surprise no one...

I an definitely not defensive about it. I was just making a comment. Sorry if it came across defensive.

[Jeepnokc]

Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

[Just the facts]

Just to clarrify, the phrase cul-de-sac kids doesn't literally mean kids living on cul-de-sacs, it means kids living in subdivisions, of which cul-de-sacs are a defining characteristic.

[boitoirich]

The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

I would be very interested in seeing a well-designed developmental psychology study on the effect of neighborhood typology on development. In the end, though, I really don't think it's about cul-de-sac vs. grid, but more about access to outdoor activities, fresh food, good schools, and having parents of some means. If suburban children are less anxious, might that be because their wealthier parents provide them with luxury of living a less stressful life? If those parents all moved to the inner city (thereby improving those schools in the process, and bringing with the the range of amenities they expect), wouldn't future studies then show the opposite? So we have to be careful when talking about correlations between street types/neighborhood types and psychological and socioeconomic outcomes. There are clear, intervening variables in the way.

At any rate, a well-designed, compact development is better for families and cities than a sprawling one.

[bchris02]

The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

I heard an ice cream truck today and I wondered to myself how they stay in business when the kids are inside on their xboxes rather than playing outside.

[PWitty]

I assume in the top picture you would want to live on one of the dead end streets because the houses on the thru streets see far more traffic than any house in the bottom picture. If you choose to live on a dead street I suggest you read up on the problems related to what has become known as Cul-de-sac kids. It isn't pretty.

I googled "Cul-de-sac kids" and the only results that came up were a bunch of links to a lovely children's book series, plus definitions for "cul-de-sac". I know you don't like suburban-esque topics, but you can't make up something and claim it to be the beginning-of-the-end for all suburban kids. It may not be your preference but some people do prefer living in those types of neighborhoods. Not everybody has to live the same way.

[Spartan]

All of the urbanists articulating why one of these sprawl aerials are worse than the grid aerial are missing the point. The visual clicks for me because I also espouse the argument behind it, but for others an indicative photo depiction doesn't seem to be the right message.

People want nice things. They want social justice and sustainability for other communities because the concept is great, and they can recognize which photo shows that. But they want the most luxurious for themselves. The argument needs to be how Mesta Park is simply more luxurious than Kelley Pointe or Morning Woods subdivisions in Edmond. It's not even close. MidtownR properties and Deep Deuce apartments are more opulent than MacArthur Park Apartments.

You can have your cake and eat it too. It's not enough to point out what is sprawl. Get people to actually want the alternative and not just feel bad about the standard behavior.

[Rover]

Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

Wow. This is great stuff. Square street grid. 4 way stops....or is it round abouts (I'm confused which is the most urban). Buildings within 10 feet of the street. Back in angled parking. Sidewalks and bike lanes. Everyone living on top of each other. Bars on every block. Streetcars and busses. AND THEN all social and health problems are solved. Who knew.