Grid structures are better than Cul-de-sac structures when it comes to the development of the city
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
BoP is shared, Con must also prove why Cul-de-sacs are better. Pro waive r1, Con waive r4
- What is a developed city?
- The efficiency of the grid
- Examples of productive cities
- High levels of economical activities
- Densely-packed population
- A convenience for industry and manufacturing
- 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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
Let's pick one example. Pro believes that Singapore is grid dominated. It is not. It is dominated by cul-de-sacs.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
I got to keep this one on the shorter side, but I think both sides will appreciate the vote instead of the inevitable no-vote tie.
Interpeting the resolution: this one is weird, as any tied point can be given to CON.
1. Mobility/Efficiency:
CON opens up with a decent case that cul de sacs are capable of being efficient currently, although notably many of his sources pertained to suburban/lower density housing, whereas the resolution specifies "city planning." PRO counters that cul-de-sacs in present cities are highly inefficient in dealing with traffic. CON points out that we are talking about capability here, not what is in current cities (I will note though, in terms of capability he hasn't demonstrated that traffic flows well in cul de sacs. Just that in terms of housing density, things look good.)
This point seems at a stalemate, and then CON switches his argument to being "they are equally good." PRO says "they aren't" without really changing their tune other then to argue that city suburbs are not the city proper, which is fair, but technically city proper can include suburbs. Overall, this point is a tie for me. It defaults to CON, then, because he must only show that there is not a notable difference in quality between the two.
2. Social Cohesion/Youth Suicides:
I approached this argument from a place of skepticism. While I am sure there is a correlation somewhere in there, there are so many factors contributing to suicide rates that I'm not weighing this point as much as Mobility/Efficiency. That said, there is a little weight there, and what little there is goes to CON.
3. Crime
This was a pretty good point... in theory. PRO replies that crime is irrelevant when it comes to the development of a city. I don't buy it. I think city planners should keep crime in mind when developing cities. This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime. Additionally, considering how many factors are involved in crime rates, I'm not giving a terrible amount of weight here, but I'm still calling it in CON's favor...
Conclusion:
I'd say overall I've been convinced that both have their purposes in city planning, and that one is not terribly better than the other. This favors the CON position. It feels like PRO didn't put all that much effort into this one, which is a shame because CON's case was totally beatable.
yeah, it felt a bit lazy. I know he is capable of more
CORRECTION: In my vote, I said "This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
I meant: "This is dropped entirely, but CON weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
I am glad you noted that pro didnt even pull the big guns lol (history of grid, standards... etc). Maybe he was too busy.
vote
bruh. you playin devils advocate or something? You had plenty of rounds to establish the foundation and history of Grid structure. You could've forced me to throw in the towel by round 2
No. My geography class investigated what kinds of city plannings are there and how they compare.
is this also I can I BB?