Although cul-de-sacs serve, as they did for me growing up, as the ideal locale for a great game of kickball or, even better, baseball, I personally avoid them like the plague when it comes to building on them. Cul-de-sac lots, due to shape, are generally prohibitive of any sort of decent spacial arrangement of structures (unless pre-planned together), usually create shallow back yards flanked by awkward triangle side-yards, and often only exaserbate the garage-heavy frontage that suburbia is increasingly criticized for.
Try, sometime perhaps when you're bored, fitting two brick mailboxes and your city-walk between two 3-car-width driveways that come together on a shared curb radius. Then, try to park anything more than a Skittle at the curb.
This isn't a slam on my friend Marcus or his company Absolute Lawn, nor is it a shameless plug. But it does make the point.
I can tell you for a fact, though, based on my experience in working with home buyers that they are indeed attractive to those with kids, and very effective at creating more protective play space. If you disagree, just ask some
folks in Fenwick.
Dustbury provides point, counterpoint on the ensuing debate regarding the pros and cons of cul-de-sacs, as precipitated by a the state of
Virginia's placing of restrictions on future developments' use of the iconic suburban element.
I don't buy into the all of the reasoning behind state's arguments, nor do I think they should be prohibited when they meet accessibility and emergency services requirements.
Batesline takes an entirely different angle with an argument so surgically made it makes one wonder if blogging isn't his only after-hours gig.
