<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>denkmoon</author><text>When I was a kid in the 90s (in Australia, not the US), we lived in a cul-de-sac suburb, and every cul-de-sac had a footpath to nearby streets and parklands.&lt;p&gt;In the early 2000s, residents realised they could petition the local government to have the footpaths removed and the land would be allocated to the neighbouring properties. Within the space of a few years, the route I used to walk to my school bus stop was completely blocked off because all the footpaths were removed. I went from having 4-5 different routing options to none. Also made it so that instead of riding my bike to my friend&amp;#x27;s house through parks and away from the road, I had to be driven (because my parents didn&amp;#x27;t like me riding near a high traffic road which I can understand).&lt;p&gt;Me and Mum were the only people on the &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; side to show up at the council meetings.</text><parent_chain><item><author>gpvos</author><text>A thing about North-American cul-de-sac suburbs that I don&amp;#x27;t understand is why there are no footpaths to take shortcuts between the dead-end streets. That would make them much less hostile to pedestrians, would allow you to visit neighbours more easily, and it seems to me that you don&amp;#x27;t lose anything. Is it just an oversight or is there some reason for that? It should even increase social safety: always an escape route.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Decline of the City Grid</title><url>https://www.economist.com/interactive/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/the-decline-of-the-city-grid</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>markfenton</author><text>There is a view held by some that they actually decrease safety by providing somewhere for undesirables to loiter, or a means of escape after committing crime, or simply attract more foot traffic to an area than a cul-de-sac therfore increasing the chance of opportunistic crime.&lt;p&gt;I suspect this is a situation where the benefits of the shortcuts to society may be greater than the possible downsides to the nearby homeowners, but more power lies with the local residents, or developers who want to sell homes. It would be interesting to know if there is any research on whether there is any effect on crime from this sort of development.</text><parent_chain><item><author>gpvos</author><text>A thing about North-American cul-de-sac suburbs that I don&amp;#x27;t understand is why there are no footpaths to take shortcuts between the dead-end streets. That would make them much less hostile to pedestrians, would allow you to visit neighbours more easily, and it seems to me that you don&amp;#x27;t lose anything. Is it just an oversight or is there some reason for that? It should even increase social safety: always an escape route.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Decline of the City Grid</title><url>https://www.economist.com/interactive/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/the-decline-of-the-city-grid</url></story>