Instigator / Pro
Intelligence_06's avatar
4
Intelligence_06
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#2437

Grid structures are better than Cul-de-sac structures when it comes to the development of the city

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Tags
Society
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
seldiora's avatar
7
seldiora
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

BoP is shared, Con must also prove why Cul-de-sacs are better. Pro waive r1, Con waive r4

Round 1
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Pro
#1
I waive according to the structure. I look forward to the response in favor of cul-de-sacs.
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Con
#2
Perhaps the best starting source is this undergraduate thesis from University of Vermont (backed by other trustworthy sources), which I will paraphrase and summarize most important points of, while adding upon my own sources to defend. 

1) Mobility: The author argues that people really don't mind and don't care about the supposed increase of traffic that cul-de-sacs cause-- "in response to a question about traffic concerns in my online survey, only 3% of respondents indicated that they were very concerned about traffic within their neighborhoods". The vast majority of those in cul-de-sacs lived near where they needed to go, and so the "problems" were not truly problems. The author also notes, "Since the cul-de-sac does not permit through traffic to use the street, vehicles that enter the street would have nowhere to go other than to the homes situated along it. Residents living on the cul-de-sac should then easily be able to determine who is new to the street and who is a daily user of the street." He backs this up with the fact that half the people are not worried about crime in their local area. But of course, who am I to only rely on an Undergraduate? Let's look at the experts' studies. "Increased depth of the cul-de-sac from the main street (C2) resulted in a low crime rate. This result contrasts with the general idea that an increased number of intersections results in higher vulnerability to crime due to the increase in escape routes. This is because the number of intersections between the main street and the cul-de-sac was measured in this study by limiting the connectivity characteristic of intersections that connect all ways. This phenomenon is aggravated further in neighborhoods with a higher population of people aged 14–19 (S4) and more ethnic heterogeneity (S2)". 

It's not just the one expert, others agree: "The conclusions of this study and the others identified in the Literature Review are that cul-desac streets are a deterrent to burglaries", with the same research noting the increased efficiency of driving...

"Efficiency is chiefly the result of combining two standard street types—loops and cul-de-sacs—with long blocks. Contrary to popular opinion, the curvilinear streets that are typical of conventional suburban subdivisions are not efficient; they reflect an aesthetic preference and have little impact on land consumption. While irregular lot shapes do not pack efficiency, this is of relative little consequence at low densities. In fact, for comparable residential densities, loop and cul-de-sac streets are more efficient than tradition gridiron geometry". 

Not convinced? You want a third one? Third one's the charm? Alright, let's put the nail in the coffin: "The findings demonstrate that increased permeability is associated with elevated burglary risk, that burglary risk is lower on cul-de-sacs (particularly those that are sinuous in nature), and that the risk of burglary is higher on more major roads and those street segments that are connected to them." 

So yeah, lower crime, lower crime, lower crime. I've got three sources combined that support this statement. Unless pro overcomes this, he may very well lose with this argument alone. After all, is it not superior to have... well... lower crime? Safety matters to our citizens and our people, and that's why cul de sacs are superior to grid pattern in this argument.

2) Social Cohesiveness: The author lists three researchers who broke the opposing argumentations -- Hochschild, Mayo and Willmott. Combined with his personal statistic gathering, and also with intuition, it seems more likely that you would know each other better with the cul-de-sacs. The natural closeness of buildings seem to infer that indeed, cul-de-sacs do not interfere with letting us know our neighbors better. Because people are able to conduct daily sports and activities together, where there is little traffic to interfere, it follows naturally that there would be this closer interconnectivity. Naturally however, pro might think these three studies are not good enough, then, let me present a professional article from a journal, which notes: "My data reveal that bulb residents experience the highest levels of attitudinal and behavioral cohesion, followed by dead-ends, then through streets. With planning debates about the future of the cul-de-sac currently taking place across the country, this study provides timely insight into the relationship between street design and neighborly bonds. " 

3) Youth Experience - Unfortunately, I think the paper does a mediocre job as it only manages to prove there are some benefits including sports and activities, working together with arg 2 to try to overcome the suicidal rates "caused by loneliness". Here I will directly counter the idea that the design of cul de sac is inherently bad for "being lonely". Firstly, the articles he notes the opponent draws from are concerning urban sprawl in general (especially Duany), and Gaines' source is both inaccessible and defeated by careful research by another fellow in political science -- "Residents of denser places are more likely to report depressed mood and dissatisfaction with their neighborhoods; those in more affluent places are more likely to be depressed, less satisfied with life, feel lower levels of self-efficacy and esteem. In conclusion, I suggest that the social isolation that accompanies the economic segregation of many suburban communities is an important source of suburban psychological malaise". As you can see, there are many conditions that must combine together in order for cul de sac to fulfill contributing directly to the suicide. With arg 2 in place, it's definitely contradictory to grid layout being superior. 

And perhaps the best support for the sports and activities is yet another expert... " First, because cul-de-sacs tend to be territorial streets, parents are more likely to let their children play outside unattended under the watchful eyes of neighbors. These neighbors provide a social safety net for cul-de-sac children and their friends. Second, because they are aware that they are likely being watched, cul-de-sac children are less likely to partake in deviant activities while on their street. The author refers to this internalized form of self-discipline as street panopticism. Third, the low traffic levels on cul-de-sacs create greater opportunity for uninterrupted play, thus drawing cul-de-sac kids outside for individual and group recreation." 

Oho. So you're telling me, not only do children not feel less lonely, they are more safe, and have more fun without breaking laws? Now we're talking. Let's keep going.

4) Policy: The undergraduate only scratches the surface but notes that despite some cities being against the idea, other states greet it with open arms. I have a plausible explanation for this. A hefty research paper notes that it's all in how you conduct the precise layout and how it is done: "Within the capacity of this paper, it was anticipated that the discussions would lead to further queries on the potentialities of an exact assessment method of the cul-de-sac. The answer may, at this juncture, lie within itself; there is yet one to conceive both aspects of environmental and social domains. Nevertheless, the breadth of this , which exposes the need for a trans-disciplinary approach to the environment-behaviour setting of the cul-de-sac neighborhood; as well as the dire need for an Asian and Malaysian approach towards contributing to the published, academic milieu." In other words, even if pro manages to prove currently cul de sac are worse than grid, I don't think the "ARE" in the premise strictly prevents it to the present, the exact moment. If I can prove with a different approach that cul de sac can be equal or even better, then I can still win the debate. As you can see, this careful idea about different takes on cul-de-sac may destroy many arguments that pro may be thinking of, as he must negate that at the best theoretical level, cul de sac is still worse than grid.

Conclusion: I have given numerous examples from big research papers and carefully curated statistic to prove that cul de sac are not inherently worse than grid. There are many factors that influence city design pattern and pro must prove that even in a vacuum that grid pattern is better than cul de sac. I warn voters not to easily believe in any news sites or blog posts that pro gives, as they may not be as well reviewed as professional scholarly sources I have given here.


Round 2
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Pro
#3
Sorry for the late argument.

Pre-argument

I will base my argument on these points.
  1. What is a developed city?
  2. The efficiency of the grid
  3. Examples of productive cities
Rebuttals may or may not be added to this argument.

Luckily, without my definition, my opponent still understood the proper definition, within context, of Cul-de-sacs and Grids. As a result, I shall continually use this definition.

What is a developed city?

We should know that we are not arguing just that Grids are better totally, but with modifiers. Obviously, drinking water is better than drinking Coke, but the latter is significantly better if the condition is to make you a do-nothing fat brat who only wants to watch TV on useless drama. We are arguing that Grids are better at developing cities, regardless of how it may fit in suburban towns or even rural farms.

Developed: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living[1]
City: an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village[2]

We essentially have defined these two, however, this is not the end of it. So, a developed city must have the qualities prescribed below, according to a professional paper[3].
  • High levels of economical activities
  • Densely-packed population
  • A convenience for industry and manufacturing
As I am a lazy-ass teenager and my opponent is probably not, due to that the timeframe of the arguments is 1 week, my opponent can play the game called CityState to understand what a developed city looks like and feels like. Obviously, this should be a common sense of what a developed city is, and I am just citing a research paper to show that even professionals agree with this knowledge that should be already common sense. 

The efficiency of the grid

Cul-de-sacs make us drive more distance. We have to drive more distance because the roads are literally unpredictable. One left turn here, one right turn here, and more and more and more... Taking a grid formation for an example, an avenue of 1 km can take you from the home to work. It is not the same way though in cul-de-sac formations: As basically none of those communities have perfectly straight lines crossing each other(Otherwise it would be a grid, lol), and you are probably going on 19 different streets just to get to work, which would probably be longer than the grids. In turn, you are never really driving as efficiently as you are on the grid[4]. The same source also points out that 

I wasn't clear, was I? If I was, thank you. If I wasn't, let's give a real-life example. Youtube users have commented that a 5-minute walk would suffice to go to school for them, but because of the inefficient design it would take them 20 or more minutes to go to the same place, this or anything similar[5]. Bus drivers and residents complained of the distance even if they feel safe.

Neighborhoods are barely connected to each other and you would probably need to go on the main highway relatively far away just to go to your neighboring community that you can see with your own eyes without binoculars right out of your window. In the same video[6], these are notable.
  • 0:21: You can literally see two communities that are neighboring, one taking the left 2/3 of the screen, one on the right 1/3, but what do you see here? No, I repeat, no street connecting the two. This is the equivalent of New York City, but every avenue/road is cut off between the 33rd and 34th streets, so you have to go downtown all the way to Williamsburg Bridge, go up from Brooklyn to Queens, then out of the Midtown tunnel or the Queensborogh bridge if you live in 33rd and work at 34th. Efficiency is key to productivity, so if you are driving triple the distance for the same work, your neighborhood is inefficient. As safe as Cul-de-sac formations work, it doesn't take you to the destination as fast.
  • 1:30: Well, we have irregular city subdivisions designed for the capitalist system for their own good and not exactly ours.
  • 3:30: Their plan went wrong and city units have streets that aren't connected.
  • 3:55: Cul-de-sacs are cheaper but that is all it is. It is not making the place more productive and developed considering how inconvenient you are from home to work.
  • 4:50: Cul-de-sacs are made to slow the traffic, something even less sufficient.
  • Just yet, Cul-de-sacs are made for only safety, not productivity. You rarely see these in the centre downtowns of big cities. Having the safest plan ever probably won't bring the most out of your life.
  • 6:00: It makes no sense of walking and biking because it is so long. Inconvenience. Also, this highlights the first bulletpoint here.
CONCLUSION: Cul-de-sacs are used only for safety but not for productivity. You won't want to go to work in such a place. We are arguing how developed the city would be, not how safe. A very dangerous city could also be developed. Safety doesn't correlate to productivity.

Examples of grids in developed cities

Singapore[7]

NYC[8]

Seoul[9]

London[10]

Hong Kong[11]

Tokyo[12]

Berlin[13]

San Francisco[14]

Note: All of these are chosen from a list of 8 most developed cities[15]. If my opponent can put up cities just as advance as these 8 with cul-de-sacs then let's talk.

Sources


seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Con
#4
What is a developed city?
Objection, this is irrelevant! The topic is about the development of the city, not that grid structures are better than cul de sac within developed cities!

Development: the act, process, or result of developing (to set forth or make clear by degrees or in detail) [Merriam Webster]

It is nearly impossible for room of growth if the city is already developed. To develop a developed city seems contradictory. You are already done. Your mission is accomplished. Even if pro could prove that grid is superior within developed (which he has not), he still has to prove that the developed city ought to keep the grid structure, continue using it, even with future expansions and differing opinions (as the limits beyond the city may not be developed), and refuse to use cul-de-sacs despite its numerous advantages. In order for the example of developed cities to succeed, he must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the grid structure was key to the development, and that cul de sacs could not have replaced it efficiently. Now towards his arguments.

Efficiency of the grid

pro's research says the problem relies precisely in “You make a terrible mistake if you plan a city in terms of buildings and facilities and parks,” Bernstein says, “and don’t look at the space that those things occupy.” This implies that the planning is at fault, not the cul de sacs in particular. He has failed to take note that My argument above, reiterated from this source:

"Efficiency is chiefly the result of combining two standard street types—loops and cul-de-sacs—with long blocks. Contrary to popular opinion, the curvilinear streets that are typical of conventional suburban subdivisions are not efficient; they reflect an aesthetic preference and have little impact on land consumption. While irregular lot shapes do not pack efficiency, this is of relative little consequence at low densities. In fact, for comparable residential densities, loop and cul-de-sac streets are more efficient than tradition gridiron geometry". 

This infers that the *way* the cul de sac is designed highly impacts its efficiency and negates pro's argument. 

Grid in developed cities

I call gish gallop with no backing argument. Pro needs to prove that the grid was essential to developing these cities and that they are superior to cul de sacs. Merely because the cities' design is grid does not prove it better than those with cul de sacs.

Dropped arguments

C1: Less Crime. This is very important as security is a key feature as citizens desire in the development of the cities. With decrease of crime cul de sacs help more than grid development. This alone could defeat pro's entire argument, however many cities he lists that use grid structure.

C2: Social cohesiveness: As shown in the research, cul de sac brings together neighbors, increasing social interaction and helping fight against depression and loneliness. Pro must overcome this benefit in order to win the debate. 

C3: Youth experience: Children are open to view, which allows parents to be relaxed and allow them to play with others, without worry of problems. This does not occur in grid related cities. Pro has not addressed this problem. 

C4: Policy: I have already listed many states that accept the introduction of cul-de-sacs. The way China, an increasing feature and nearing a world power, still uses cul de sacs in its areas is noted as a strong contradiction to pro's gish gallop. Because of the examples listed, the potential of cul de sacs far surpass grid structures. 

Conclusion: Pro has only used a single news article which has doubts within its own example, noting that it was majorly a planning flaw that caused people to be unable to obtain milk within 10 miles, 10 minutes, whatever. But my polls from the undergraduate thesis paper thoroughly negate this idea, and the research shows that unorthodox design greatly helps the mobility. This directly defeats pro's sole argument. Pro has tried to note that a lot of developed cities use grid structure, but with no reasoning left behind this, we can only assume there was some kind of cultural precedent that tended towards the bias of grid structures, or maybe even lack of knowledge. Either way, it's not a very convincing argument. 
Round 3
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Pro
#5
Pre-argument

I will use most rebuttals because my previous argument can solve everything introduced by my opponent second round.

Objection, this is irrelevant! The topic is about the development of the city, not that grid structures are better than cul de sac within developed cities!
I am afraid that my opponent's objection is of no value considering I am arguing that grid structures are better at being prepared for developed cities. If you see massive skyscrapers meant for business in basic cul-de-sacs then tell me, because I got none. See how there are 8 entire cities who use grids and out of them, at least the developed portion uses a grid; while the undeveloped, the sectors with no high-density populations, the sections with no business, and the sections with just random suburbs contributing not even half of what half of Manhattan contributes uses cul-de-sacs because they are designed solely to fit low-density, non-business suburbs that, even if it is better at keeping the people safe, are TERRIBLE at moving people from point A to point B because all those extra branches you would be going through.

It is nearly impossible for room of growth if the city is already developed. To develop a developed city seems contradictory. You are already done. Your mission is accomplished. Even if pro could prove that grid is superior within developed (which he has not), he still has to prove that the developed city ought to keep the grid structure, continue using it, even with future expansions and differing opinions (as the limits beyond the city may not be developed), and refuse to use cul-de-sacs despite its numerous advantages.
My opponent is trying to say that a developed city is not going to develop anymore but fails to acknowledge that every city is going to start from scratch at some point. In other words, you are not building grids on top of an already developing town. You are building grids from scratch building the base of a developed city. You are either demolishing up informal settlements or you are paving the villages needing financial backing, either way, you are starting somewhere. Look at the results? 8 of the most developed cities within this world uses grids in their downtown blooming districts. If you are gonna count those low-density, low-industry, low-trading districts with trustworthy folks living in bungalows and mansions as within the cities, then I am counting Long Beach as Los Angeles. Those, even if legally being counted as near those "productive" big cities, aren't developed and productive as those big cities. What do those big cities use? Grids. I have 8 distinct maps that show it, and you can't deny the cities because they are flourishing in real life.

pro's research says the problem relies precisely in “You make a terrible mistake if you plan a city in terms of buildings and facilities and parks,” Bernstein says, “and don’t look at the space that those things occupy.” This implies that the planning is at fault, not the cul de sacs in particular. He has failed to take note that My argument above, reiterated from this source:
I do not deny Cul-de-sac structures in the suburbs and rural lands, but planning them on city-wide is an absolute joke. Also, if planning itself is being faulted then you can escape blame on everything because communism isn't wrong, what is wrong is the people that practice it. I didn't do the problem wrong, I wrote something else. Plus, buildings, facilities, and parks are better off, in the cities, looking square. Pull aside parks because they can come in any shape, but have you seen any building shaping like one of those cul-de-sac "blocks"? It will be more of a joke. Square buildings are actually using up the grid more wisely, considering they are fitted basically perfectly around the block. With "cul-de-sac" blocks you are dealing with, buildings would have to be shaped irregularly and non-rectangular, which would leave up more spaces compared to the grid. On that neighborhoods are harder to reach, you would need more distance just traveling to the next facility that doesn't even fit the place very well.

I call gish gallop with no backing argument. Pro needs to prove that the grid was essential to developing these cities and that they are superior to cul de sacs. Merely because the cities' design is grid does not prove it better than those with cul de sacs.
Con denies not that these cities use grids and these cities are developed. There must be a reason why big cities that are developed use grids. Whatever it might be, it shows that cities with grids generally thrive better development-wise, and how many burglars or how many children are none of their business because their neighborhood is not more "developed", as that they are eventually just the outskirts of a great city.

Pro has only used a single news article which has doubts within its own example, noting that it was majorly a planning flaw that caused people to be unable to obtain milk within 10 miles, 10 minutes, whatever. But my polls from the undergraduate thesis paper thoroughly negate this idea, and the research shows that unorthodox design greatly helps the mobility.
The social network, et al., doesn't make the place more "developed". Remember a developed city must have industry, finance, high activity, and densely-packed compact populations, either way. Con has proved that cul-de-sac structures are just generally better in all places, but cities? Grids are better for square buildings, square facilities, square parks, and help pack individuals in a more condensed fashion. Not to mention that mot big cities use grids, hmm, I wonder why, there must be a reason, whatever that might be, it exists!
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Con
#6
As pro's entire case depends only on his previous cases, stressing that there are some reasons, but not specifically what, I ask voters to cast severe doubt in his argument, if not completely dismiss it. I will actually help him a bit by pointing out both the pros and the cons, and explain why he cannot simply use the gish gallop examples to assert that merely because the result seems to be one way, that it is the best way. Firstly, remember that his arguments are backed by zero additional sources, so I will ignore his rebuttals and ask voters to judge based upon my scholarly research to see if his complaints that suburbs are poorly designed, are actually founded or not. Remember that the city's development has to be desirable by people in order for support, not merely successful from an architectural stand point. 

Let's pick one example. Pro believes that Singapore is grid dominated. It is not. It is dominated by cul-de-sacs. A professional agrees that both sides have their merit, and situation highly dictates whether or not grid structures truly are always, or even majorly better. Remember, I can win even if they are equally good. As the source states: "the grid form requires more road space, as roads have to be built to form the grid even in places with low traffic, Professor Hsu explains. Furthermore, the grid’s many intersection points mean that drivers could face many red lights which slow them down, he adds.... What is a con in the grid format is a pro in the cul-de-sac form." 

Pro assures himself in his confidence in the hustle and bustle of the city, however, city growth is not merely about population, as the territory goes further out, the need for cul-de-sacs is very important. The professor notes, "You just need enough arterial roads for people commuting in the morning and evening. Therefore, it’s good to have cul-de-sacs in the suburbs so that you can use the space freed up for housing and recreation.”

On the other hand, there is heavy traffic throughout the day in the downtown area, with people visiting their clients or going for meetings at government offices and so on. For this reason, Professor Hsu says, grids are more suitable in the city centre." But the suburbs are inevitably also an important part of the city, an undeniable complement to the grid pattern. Though Professor Hsu agrees that grid expansion is excellent, he has admitted that cul de sac is definitively necessary and cannot be replaced. Add upon my previous arguments, and now you see how it is at least equal, if not better, to the development of the city.

Now, if even Singapore puts a doubt in pro's case (backed by a trusted professor), I ask voters, do you truly trust pro? He makes the claim that all the cities rely strongly on grid, more than cul-de-sacs, and as such the development must be superior with grid case. If he truly wants to support his gish gallop, it is up to him to support that each and every one is indeed grid structure 100% and that it was superior to the effects that cul-de-sacs offered, especially those that I have given. I don't need to shoot down each individual city or name my own, that is far too detailed and specific. The fact that NPR reports "in countries like the Philippines and China, and in parts of the Middle East, cul-de-sacs are fast becoming all the rage." gives me all the evidence I need to put a huge hole in pro's argument. 

Dropped arguments
Mobility: Because pro has not provided a single source to counter the undergraduate thesis and the reasoning behind planning error, we should ignore his refutation.

Crime: Could single-handedly defeat pro's entire argument; if the city argument has more victims and, arguably suffering, than those in cul de sacs, is this "development of city" really good at all? If my studies previously weren't enough, let this be the nail in the coffin: "Crime rates are much higher in big cities than in either small cities or rural areas, and this situation has been relatively pervasive for several centuries. This paper attempts to explain this connection by using victimization data, evidence from the NLSY on criminal behavior and the Uniform Crime Reports. Higher pecuniary benefits for crime in large cities can explain approximately 27% of the effect for overall crime, though obviously much less of the urban- crime connection for non-pecuniary crimes such as rape or assault. Lower arrest probabilities, and lower probability of recognition, are a feature of urban life, but these factors seem to explain at most 20% of the urban crime effect. The remaining 45-60% of the effect can be related to observable characteristics of individuals and cities. The characteristics that seem most important are those that reflect tastes, social influences and family structure. " As you can see, trying to continuously "develop" a city to be incredibly crowded can actually be very risky, and contradict pro's ideas.

Social Cohesiveness: Could also single-handedly defeat pro's entire argument. Interaction among people is key to the community, and quite desirable. 

Youth experience: Extended. As the youth is an inspirational group, their futures lies in the hand of their previous experiences, and directly relates to the development of the city. 

Policy: Could also single-handedly defeat pro's entire argument. He has not negated the idea that Chinese style cul-de-sacs have performed well thus far, and research is key to resolving the problem. 

Conclusion: Pro is left gasping for air and saying the current results are seemingly desirable, but he has not even done his research on Singapore alone, where a professor warned that each design had its own use within the city. Cul de sacs are irreplaceable and definitively necessary in the development. He vouches for major cities and praises them, while ignoring my statistics about crime, about how the denser crowds may not actually be desirable, despite filling in the demand for grid structure. He has also not refuted the fact that people feel closer together and the youth's experiences are improved. The future and present social benefits of cul de sacs far outweigh any vague benefit pro seems to be struggling to vouch for. Cul de sacs do not need to be city wide to defeat pro. They do not even have to occupy the majority of the city. Their sheer incredible level of impact on desirable traits has been shown, and each argument on its own is capable of defeating pro and his untrustworthy research. Vote for con.
Round 4
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Pro
#7
Rebuttal-based argument

I will have rebuttals here. Con, by rules, will have to waive R4. Thank you for such a great conversation.

Let's pick one example. Pro believes that Singapore is grid dominated. It is not. It is dominated by cul-de-sacs. 
Con is smashing the boulder he picked at his own toes. The expert demonstrates that the grid is a better formation when it comes to convenience and speed, which is essential since you would probably be either typing a computer on the seventh floor of a rectangular building or operating a shop on the first floor downtown. The grid's purpose is not to bring "safety", the same as that doing nothing every day doesn't make me stronger, even if it is the safer decision out of the two. The grid makes the community more convenient between points A and B, not making the people's lives happier. Con mentioned, "You make a terrible mistake if you plan a city in terms of buildings and facilities and parks,” and I will say, "You will also make a terrible mistake if you plan a developed metropolis in terms of individual people's satisfaction over the convenience between points A and B as well as the buildings and facilities and parks within them, especially if there are outskirts."

And yes, the expert said.
  • If your home is at a dead end, you may have to take a circuitous path from a small road to the main road, and finally an expressway. Such detours can end up taking a long time.
  • Although road connectivity does not imply speed – which depends on many other factors – this result shows that Singaporean drivers have to drive a longer distance between any two points on average, suggesting that the roads in Singapore are more circuitous.
  • The question of what is the right size for the grid is very difficult to answer and beyond the scope of this paper, but these results suggest that Singapore could benefit from having a larger grid.
The expert is obviously in favor of the grid if the goal of the place is progress, not conservation. The essence of a developed city is progress and not conservation. If you are sticking to having as little man-made structure as possible in the city, such as cul-de-sac-with-individual-houses-and-not-skyscrapers-structuring-and-planning, then chances are that you are probably less developed than what could qualify as a "developed city". Towns and villages are fit for Cul-de-sac structures, but for flourishing cities? *insert inarticulate sarcastic noises*

On the other hand, there is heavy traffic throughout the day in the downtown area, with people visiting their clients or going for meetings at government offices and so on. For this reason, Professor Hsu says, grids are more suitable in the city centre." But the suburbs are inevitably also an important part of the city, an undeniable complement to the grid pattern.
OK, are suburbs a part of the cities?

No. suburbs, although near the cities, have nothing to do with them.

The fact that NPR reports "in countries like the Philippines and China, and in parts of the Middle East, cul-de-sacs are fast becoming all the rage." gives me all the evidence I need to put a huge hole in pro's argument. 
It is more convenient to just live in those neighborhoods and maybe have a dinner of turkey on Thanksgiving night, but the fact they are less connected to other places, especially ones they would want or need to go, would mean that they are less likely to be as developed as those with grids. Remember, our focus in this debate is not individual persons, but the place as a whole. Appeasing the population without caring whether they would make the place better or not is obviously a bad choice if you want to make it grow.

And yes, connected neighborhoods aren't always the good neighborhood, but connected neighborhoods are always convenient neighborhoods. We want convenience if we are making the place grow.

let this be the nail in the coffin: "Crime rates are much higher in big cities than in either small cities or rural areas, and this situation has been relatively pervasive for several centuries.
We are arguing about big cities. Putting cul-de-sac structures in places to be big cities is a joke. Con is likely shifting the goalpost from the development of cities and/or the developed cities to just overall the comparison.

Social Cohesiveness: Could also single-handedly defeat pro's entire argument. Interaction among people is key to the community, and quite desirable. 

Youth experience: Extended. As the youth is an inspirational group, their futures lies in the hand of their previous experiences, and directly relates to the development of the city. 
Driving back and forth from the big metropolitan area to the little suburb(which doesn't even count as the city), I have no reason to object. What is wrong with the kids growing up in the neighborhood if they are working in the big city anyways in the future?

Policy: Could also single-handedly defeat pro's entire argument. He has not negated the idea that Chinese style cul-de-sacs have performed well thus far, and research is key to resolving the problem. 
It is also again overall instead of the development of the cities. This article mentions not that cul-de-sacs are good for the development of the cities, and the answer is clear: If you care about the growth of the city more than the connections between individual persons, use the grid as the way to go.

I am done here. Conclusions.

Conclusions
  • The grid is better used in the city especially for financial, populational, industrial, and developments of its likes.
  • The cul-de-sac is better used in the suburbs, which isn't even a part of the city, thus outside of the question.
  • Cities, especially developed ones, have been using grid inside the city, and if you are telling me cul-de-sacs, it is either minor within or on the outskirts in the metropolitan area but is already out of the city's reach.
  • Con has made arguments about the overall comparisons, but some of them miss the scope of the city.
  • Vote for Pro.

seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Con
#8
When voting, be sure to think of how many arguments pro actually managed to prove with certainty, and the distinctions we each made for our cases. Thanks for the debate.