Culdesacs are effectively a rich person's solution to "Main Street is too fast and dangerous". They also don't answer the question of "how do I walk someplace useful" - like the local grocery store highlighted in the article.
For reference, I live in a "culdesac" neighborhood (3 big ones smushed together). The main suburban street that we use to actually get anywhere is 2-5 lanes wide, 40mph posted but 50mph actual speeds, with limited pedestrian crossings and in the 8 years I've lived here at least 2 pedestrian fatalities on a 2 mile stretch.
This is pretty typical of the DC suburbs (largely built in the 70s-present). Smaller enclaves that are "walkable" in the sense you can walk around the block. But they aren't walkable in the sense you can live your life sans car/bus/whatever.
Yes, but they (cul-de-sacs) are clearly designed to prevent cars from going fast, which is what makes them a good counter-example for "everything about American cities makes more sense when you realize they are designed entirely for cars to go fast."
People want to walk their dogs and let their kids play in the yard and they're pretty aggressive about trying to prevent fast through traffic where those specific things happen.
Sure, but they're a reaction to "designed for cars to go fast". As a general statement, we do in fact engineer our roadways with maximum travel speed as one of, if not the, top factors. And then we design closed-off culdesac neighborhoods to limit our exposure to those fast roads. Where instead we could simply prioritize other transit options and other neighborhood designs (put shopping and schools within walking distance, with appropriate infrastructure).
And why do they use them in the suburbs? And why do people express disdain for interconnected roads?
Because nobody wants hundreds of cars going 40mph+ buzzing past their house every day. And instead of taking the time/money to fix the root cause, people who can afford to do so build culdesac neighborhoods.
Edit - and to be clear, I don't blame any individuals for making that choice. We're kind of stuck with what we have for now - any change/progress will be slow and incremental. None of which means we shouldn't design better/safer neighborhoods/roads.
...and why did they want to push back against the grid system? Because "the wrong" kind of people might wander through your neighborhood, so you better make it confusing and difficult!
For reference, I live in a "culdesac" neighborhood (3 big ones smushed together). The main suburban street that we use to actually get anywhere is 2-5 lanes wide, 40mph posted but 50mph actual speeds, with limited pedestrian crossings and in the 8 years I've lived here at least 2 pedestrian fatalities on a 2 mile stretch.
This is pretty typical of the DC suburbs (largely built in the 70s-present). Smaller enclaves that are "walkable" in the sense you can walk around the block. But they aren't walkable in the sense you can live your life sans car/bus/whatever.