Cul-de-sacs, Superblocks and Environmental Areas as Supports of Residential Territorialization

Abstract

In the suburbs, residential territorialization is most often associated with common interest developments, homeowners' associations, gated communities and sociospatial segregation. These forms of territorialization have been the subject of many critical analyses by the academic community. These criticisms, however, frequently discount the significance of the road network layout. This paper shows that cul-de-sacs, superblocks and 'environmental areas' are key factors. It provides support to the hypothesis that exclusionary residential territories exist along a continuum, ranging from no-through streets, superblocks, environmental areas, gated communities and privately managed communities. The creation of two cul-de-sacs facing each other can thus be compared to the erection of a barrier in the middle of a street open to through-traffic. Similarly, environmental areas function as residential enclaves.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper benefited from the support of the French National Research Agency (ANR). The author wishes to thank the anonymous referees and Christian Moley for their valuable comments on early drafts of this paper. The author would also like to thank the translator, Christine Humphries. However, all mistakes are those of the author.

Notes

 1. Some of the contributions of this latter book give a somewhat positive outlook of the so-called ‘private cities’, most notably the one by Chris Webster.

 2. In this paper, cul-de-sacs and loop streets will not be discussed separately, since the essential variable characterizing the roads referred to here is that they limit through traffic (Southworth & Ben-Joseph, 2004, p. 29).

 3. There are, of course, some instances where the status of these inside spaces is uncertain. In particular, the status of passages through halls and courtyards of apartment buildings linking one street with another are problematic (a well-known example is the ‘traboules’ of Lyon, France).

 4. For the case of France see (Charmes, 2005, chapter 4). With regard to the United States, see for example: ‘Privacy pricey in storms. Homeowners must clean, fix nonpublic streets’, Daily News (Los Angeles), 17 January 2005.

 5. As stated by Robert Lang and Arthur Nelson, suburban municipalities are increasingly reluctant with regarding the inclusion of residential streets in their public domain. Many of them allow no new development outside of homeowners' associations (2007, p. 630). For the case of France, see (Charmes, 2005, chapter 4).

 6. Donald Appleyard established a similar link between fences and diversion of traffic in his studies of streets in Berkeley's city centre (1981, pp. 215–239, 303).

 7. At the beginning of the 2000s, Bonanza Village became a true gated community, and has done so with the marked support of local authorities.

 8. Without, of course, making any assumptions on the opinion of the author regarding this question.

 9. This observation puts into question the idea that common interest developments are an instrument used by the affluent to control their environment to the detriment of the less-affluent. In fact, it appears that homeowners' associations were at first created due to a democratization of personal property and are based on the pooling of community facilities to share in their cost.

10. If Radburn had been built as it was planned, that is like a real garden city of several tens of thousands residents, the government designed by Charles Ascher may well have attracted less attention from historians like Evan McKenzie. However, as the 1929 financial crisis put an end to Radburn's development, Radburn's population culminated at 1500 inhabitants in the 1930s (Schaffer, 1992) and now stands at slightly more than 3000 inhabitants.

11. See: http://www.caionline.org/about/facts.cfm

12. See: http://celebrationfeasibility.org/

13. See: http://www.celebrationfeasibility.org/120806FeasibilityStudy.pdf

14. For a recent account of the development of three large ‘new communities’ (Irvine, Columbia and The Woodlands) see (Forsyth, 2005).

15. On special districts in the United States, see (Burns, 1994).

16. Florida Statute 165.061