r/Urbanism • u/ElectricalGap7749 • 4h ago
What if supermarkets were designed like subdivisions with dead ends and cul-de-sacs?
Imagine walking into a grocery store where every aisle is a dead end.
You turn down one, don't find what you need, and have to double back. Then you try another. And another.
Soon, you're not really shopping—you're navigating.
It sounds like a terrible way to design a supermarket. But it made me think about how we design suburban roadway networks.
Most subdivisions are essentially dendritic networks: local streets funnel into collectors, which funnel into arterials. This gives us relatively few routes for moving between destinations.
The result is something strange: two places can be physically very close but functionally far apart.
A house might be 200 feet from another neighborhood, a trail, or a shopping center, but if there's no connection between the two, the trip might require driving a mile or more to reach the destination.
But what if the problem isn't simply that we have too much traffic?
What if we don't have enough routes?
A connected street network doesn't necessarily eliminate congestion, but it gives people more ways to move through an area. It can also make short walking and biking trips much more practical.
And I don't think this necessarily means rebuilding suburbia.
In many cases, a missing connection might be a few hundred feet between two cul-de-sacs, a neighborhood and a trail, or a subdivision and a nearby destination.
So I'm curious:
Is improving connectivity a realistic way to retrofit existing suburbia, or are there important reasons why this analogy breaks down?
I wrote a longer version of this idea here:
What If Supermarkets Were Designed Like Subdivisions with Dead Ends and Cul-de-sacs?
