
What New York Can Learn from Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’ - prostoalex
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1
======
johnnyforeigner
I live and work in Poble Nou and I checked out the Superille. It was
marvellous.

It is (I believe) a temporary project to explore how it all might work. In
that sense, it's prototype and that's in fact really cool too. Basically they
did an MVP of a Superille - low cost and very fast - in order to validate
their hypotheses.

They mocked up the place to give people a feel of how living in this way could
be. And they spent as little as possible - using old tyres and paint and
recycled plywood to mark out spaces and make them feel "owned" by the people.
Placing large lots of (quite big) trees and plants in pots on the car-free
streets to see how it felt to walk down a street that was leafy and spacious
and open.

The amount of extra space feels inspiring and liberating. Walking is faster if
you want it to be - you can cut across streets and don't need to wait at stop
signals. A lot of people riding bikes. A lot of smiles.

They definitely could have done a better job explaining it though. I have
friends who support the idea but felt they could have been better informed. It
felt like they didn't give enough warning.

However, what is interesting and cool is that once it was in place they did
their best to engage residents in a dialogue about the proposal - they painted
markings on the tarmac of the streets to lay out spaces for people to assemble
and discuss. They had a soapbox platform for people to rant from, and a bunch
of chairs scattered around the street for people to sit and discuss. They had
walls for comments to be posted.

I certainly hope they go ahead with making it permanent and making more of
them.

Cities without care are very different and much more humane places to live.
Scale matters and cars warp the scale of a city in ways that are
counterproductive to vibrant urban life.

I'm pretty sure we can overcome the technical issues that restrain us from our
inevitable transition away from routine private car use in cities. Problems
like what to do about parking are a legacy of the current broken system, not a
fact of nature. The economic incentives to car ownership and the
infrastructure that supports it are baked into cities right now. But this can
change - but not by solving parking but by solving the underlying system and
that includes pressuring the system to change through initiatives like this.

~~~
superuser2
I don't think there's much doubt about how awesome it is to live a trivial
distance from everything you need. This much is clear from the _extreme_
premium that housing in such places commands compared to freeway-connected
suburbs of US cities. It's not surprising that abundance of public space and a
lack of through traffic would make them even better.

Cars and their infrastructure are indeed ugly and dangerous, but we have them
because they so drastically increase the quality of life available to those
who can't or won't pay the rent in the same superblocks as their jobs (or move
to tenements).

Increasing the luxuriousness of this kind of premium housing would seem to
come at the cost of extracting yet more free time from those who need to come
into or through these areas but can't live in them, or yet more money from
those who decide to stretch their housing budgets. It'd be entirely
appropriate coupled with a massive increase in rail infrastructure or
something, but on its own is concerning.

I'll be very interested to see whether US cities that adopt this model can add
supply faster than people who used to commute can bid up the price of close-
to-everything housing. My guess is no, not even close, a few elites get great
lives and everyone else is driven to exurbs.

~~~
matt4077
With a bit of planning, there is no difference in quality of life for able-
bodied people living in communities from "town" up to metropolis:

Center of large city (i. e. new York, Paris):

Above a certain density, public transport becomes the norm across all income
levels (cf. bankers in New York).

Suburb of large city down to towns:

For commuters coming in from the suburbs, there are hundreds of cities that
show that rail is an option that's affordable and it usually takes 1/2h to the
city center.

What motivates people to buy cars seems to be mostly daily life within the
suburbs: shopping, getting children to school etc. This is a failure of city
planning, because it's perfectly feasible to combine the density of a suburb
with local subcenters that provide all daily needs (schools, shopping, medical
etc.) within walking distance (let's say 1.5 miles).

Taking the worst as an example, the density of Atlanta's suburbs is about
1000/sq mile ([http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/city-vs-
city/6570...](http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/city-vs-
city/65702d1279816928-density-dallas-houston-atlanta-atlanta-tract.jpg)).
Meaning there are 7074 people within a mile of any given point. That's plenty
to sustain the infrastructure to provide for daily needs, although it may mean
a need for more, but somewhat smaller schools/shops etc. (If this isn't
convincing, consider that Atlanta is the worst of the worst in terms of waste
of space. You can easily fit 10000 people within a mile^2 and still have
backyards for everyone).

It's only rural living that requires a car. The quality of live in large
cities will dramatically increase in the next few years, if only because self-
driving cars and car sharing require far fewer parking spots. These make up
about half of the space required for cars right now, meaning their abolition
could double the space available for pedestrians.

------
grassclip
I'm actually in Barcelona at the moment, and it's definitely been easy to walk
around, but that could also be because the touristy areas near the ocean are
very dense, and day to day living north or west of that hub might be
different. Besides the giant blocks for walking (I'm not sure I've found a
"superblock", but the blocks I've walked on are huge), there are an incredible
amount of mopeds. That seems to be a default way of getting around town for
locals. That's a big difference than bikers who have to worry about bikes
getting stolen, mopeds are probably going to be safe where you leave them, and
people here are able to leave them pretty much everywhere. Movement in the
city seems very easy for sure.

Side note, anyone here work at or know about Pier 01 down near the water? I
just walked by there and was wondering what kind of companies were located
there.

~~~
toyg
_> mopeds are probably going to be safe_

:) mopeds (or rather "scooters" and "vespas" in Italy) get stolen left right
and centre. They are used more than bikes simply because they require less
effort - they are the closest modern equivalent to horses, the transportation
method for which old European cities were actually built.

~~~
JohaRiz
> they are the closest modern equivalent to horses

I'm not sure how you're making this comparison, but if we're gonna compare
machines to horses, the bicycle was invented in the 19th century to compete
with horses, before automobiles were invented.

~~~
CydeWeys
His comparison makes sense to me. When you ride a horse or a moped, you aren't
putting the effort into it, something else is. When you ride a bike, you're
putting the effort into it. It's definitely a difference. I enjoy a 10 km bike
ride, but it definitely takes effort, and I'm not likely to do that if I'm
going somewhere I'm not willing to show up sweaty too. It's a completely
different consideration on a moped (or a horse, but who has a horse these days
anyway).

------
westbywest
I'm surprised the NYT article didn't mention anything about Barcelona's
existing legacy in novel and pedestrian-friendly urban layout. The
"superilles" likely reference part of the city's existing street grid composed
of "illes," where blocks are chamfered to create large intersections and
provide space for walkways, green strips, even expand sunlight penetration
somewhat.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample)

------
Symmetry
They can learn a lot more from Barcelona's $39m/km subway construction costs,
compared to something like $1b/km in New York. Some of that is NY's density
but worldwide averages are still around $300m/km and Barcelona is a stellar
outlier.

Also their way of having dedicated bus lanes.

~~~
jdavis703
Their "subway" is actually more like light rail. I think the lesson here is
that more cities should be building high quality underground light rail (none
of this at-grade Muni BS that exists in SF and other Pacific Northwest
cities).

~~~
chris_7
What's wrong with at-grade rail, presuming signal priority and dedicated
lanes? Works fine in Geneva, Amsterdam, etc.

~~~
jdavis703
Works fine until someone driving by runs over the passengers who are de-
boarding [0]. Or until someone crashes into the train [1].

[0] [http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/02/18/muni-taraval-meeting-
me...](http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/02/18/muni-taraval-meeting-met-with-
grimaces-groans-and-grumbles/) [1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Car-
crashes-into-Muni-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Car-crashes-into-
Muni-train-in-West-Portal-6036557.php)

~~~
slyall
Sounds like a poor design, most places will have people boarding from
sidewalks or a raise area.

As for the 2nd, people run into stuff in the cars all the time. Around 50-100
people die each day on US roads. And in the story you mentioned only the
people in the car were injured, nobody on the train.

------
specialp
I live in NY and I spent time living in the UK. In the UK most city centers
had blocked off pedestrian areas that were only open in the morning for truck
deliveries. This was possible because there was a commercial core where people
did not reside, and there was plenty of outlying roads to park and drive
around.

NYC has a LOT of people living in every area of the city. There is a lot of
construction and residential deliveries, and emergency traffic. Certain areas
have become pedestrian plazas, and some are closed off during the weekend but
it is simply not possible to close off a significant amount of space. Anyone
driving to Manhattan especially during peak times is not doing it out of
convenience as it is extremely inconvenient to drive there. Often people have
tools and equipment, and parking in garages in Midtown can easily cost you
$40-$60.

If you live or are visiting NYC it is a nice thought to have pedestrian only
roads. But we have to remember that the trades people that make city life
possible really need roads to work.

~~~
chris_7
With respect to emergency services, NYC ambulances and fire trucks get stuck
in the traffic of private cars/taxis all of the time. If there were less cars,
that wouldn't happen.

With respect to deliveries, if the sides of streets weren't given away to free
parking, delivery vehicles would be free to use loading zones.

Most people don't advocate the removal of four-wheeled motor vehicles. They
advocate the removal of _private cars_.

(also, superblocks aren't pedestrian-only streets)

------
santialbo
Here's a nice video explaining what superblocks are

[http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12342806/barcelona-
superblocks](http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12342806/barcelona-superblocks)

------
rayiner
This would be harder to do in New York because the blocks are very long east-
to-west. It's a third of a mile from 6th avenue to 8th avenue. It'd be easy to
shut down a bunch of the east-to-west streets (which are often pretty quiet
anyway), but you'd lose a lot of the utility of the superblock without an
internal north-south pedestrian route connecting them.

~~~
chris_7
This can partially be fixed by significantly expanding the sidewalks on the
avenues (especially in Midtown). Take them down to 1 bus/emergency lane, 1
private car lane, and some loading zones (where there aren't bus stops), which
will also help with induced demand.

~~~
Ericson2314
Add mid block cross walks too, or just allow pedestrians everywhere unless
there's an emergency vehicle.

~~~
chris_7
That's basically just legalizing the current behavior!

------
erjjones
Indianapolis has a similar hybrid approach to this.

[http://www.georgiastreetindy.com/](http://www.georgiastreetindy.com/)

A street that has pedestrian/event space in the center and one lane roads on
the outside. This street connects the Convention Center to the Bankers Life
Field House (where the Pacers play).

------
sotojuan
I'm not sure how this might work considering the fact that trucks are taking
stuff to and from Manhattan businesses and homes almost 24/7\. Barcelona might
be a city, but it's scale and density is nowhere near that of New York.

Perhaps I can see this being tested in another borough in an area with lower
density.

~~~
cmyr
I always find it surprising when people, imagining some large change, pick on
some current reality and how it would have trouble fitting into the imagined
future as some sort of indictment of that future.

I would suggest that roads closed to most vehicle traffic would be open to
delivery trucks, like in most old european town centres, and or delivery is
made by smaller vehicles. In the long-term, I can imagine a new model of city
infrastructure that allows easy small-scale delivery with some standardized
container system and small electric vehicles.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
They aren't even suggesting that the interior streets be completely closed,
just that the speed limit be reduced to 5 mph and pedestrians be given
priority. That would make them unattractive if you are trying to get all the
way through the block, but if you are trying to drive up to a building inside
the block it would only be a minor inconvenience.

------
cagataygurturk
The first two photos given are from el born and poblenou, which is out of the
famous neighborhood l'exiample. Only l'exaimple is famous with their blocks.
El born is a part of the historical center of Barcelona but now pedestrian
area while poblenou was the industrial area before 1992 olympic games.

If you are looking for an example in Barcelona, it should only be l'eixample,
which is one of architectural and engineering successes of 20th century.

And many times a very big fact is overseen: Barcelona is a village comparing
to other big cities of the world. It is famous, popular, a great touristic
destination in the summer but in the winter it is a village. A small city
where people has normal, calm life. You can't compare it to any metropolitan
city.

~~~
gonvaled
> Barcelona is a village comparing to other big cities of the world

Compared to what? It has 1.6 million people. Counting metropolitan area, you
have nearly 5 million people. And, unfortunately, spanish cities are quite
dense (compared to other european cities at least)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona)

------
maxsilver
There's no such thing as a space "just for automobiles". _People_ are in those
cars. People who are trying to go to/from somewhere. If you want to get rid of
cars, you have to provide some alternative (preferably _better_ ) mode of
transportation for the people and stuff within them.

But that part rarely happens. Everyone loves doing the easy part (ban cars!).
No one wants to do the hard part of still letting people and stuff get around
somehow.

It's like saying "sewers smell gross, we should ban them", while conveniently
ignoring the fact that thousands of people are still going to generate
wastewater, and it's has to go somewhere.

~~~
jessaustin
_But that part rarely happens. Everyone loves doing the easy part (ban
cars!)._

Has this happened somewhere, that cars have been banned in an area, and all
the businesses have closed since no one could travel there anymore?

~~~
superuser2
What happens is people have to spend more of their free time in transit (and
be much less comfortable in transit), or more of their money for housing that
is closer to their destinations. This is time and money that is no longer
available for the other things people want. The businesses don't close. People
cope. Their quality of life just declines.

This is sort of _necessarily_ true - people wouldn't be choosing to drive
unless they felt it was better than alternatives. Taking away that option is
necessarily forcing them into worse alternatives.

~~~
enoch_r
> This is sort of necessarily true - people wouldn't be choosing to drive
> unless they felt it was better than alternatives. Taking away that option is
> necessarily forcing them into worse alternatives.

This is absolutely not "necessarily true." It's possible that driving has
large negative externalities and requires large public expenditures, to the
extent that while for any individual trip we'd be happier driving, we'd be
even happier if we could coordinate non-driving. I love living in a car-
unfriendly place, because while it might be less pleasant and more stressful
when I do have to drive, it's _wonderful_ to be able to walk or ride my bike
to the grocery store, work, parks, playgrounds, etc.

~~~
superuser2
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've no doubt that you love walking and
biking, but if your neighbors felt the same way, they wouldn't need to be
coerced into it by car-unfriendly design.

~~~
enoch_r
One could just as easily say "I have no doubt that you love traveling the
speed limit through your neighborhood, but if your neighbors felt the same
way, they wouldn't need to be coerced into it by enforcement and design." Even
when I drive safely, there are _costs_ borne by others when I drive--if
nothing else, I make the street less pleasant and useful for my neighbors and
their children and I make transportation more dangerous/stressful for cyclists
and pedestrians.

Second, this is a bizarre way to use the word "coercion." It isn't like our
existing infrastructure is some neutral ideal and I prefer "car-unfriendly"
designs--spending $1.1 billion to add lanes to the 405 freeway in LA isn't a
gift from god, it's a government subsidy for a particular behavior. Living in
Orange County without a car, getting around involved walking or biking along
busy, unpleasant multilane arterials with 45+mph speed limits (quieter streets
were inevitably cul de sacs that spit you right back out into the meat
grinder). I didn't think "hm, I find driving pleasant, so I will drive." I
decided that driving would be dramatically less likely to result in my sudden
death than riding-- _on streets like that_.

People in Amsterdam choose to bike because they feel it's better than the
alternatives. People in LA choose to drive for the exact same reason. If you
think the difference is the amount of "coercion" they face, then you need to
be able to explain why my current neighbors are being "coerced" while my
former neighbors in OC are not.

~~~
superuser2
Okay, I guess

>we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving

was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the
presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive.
_Far_ more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip,
physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get
there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and
Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from
cars was pretty good.

There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago
metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you
lived in them, and I didn't.

It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike
lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else.

I guess people in LA _are_ being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places
facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time.

The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my
basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a
much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense
areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people
who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.

------
mxuribe
I wonder if big cities eventually incorporate more of these superblocks,
whether the need for rapid transit through some of these areas - as well as
accommodating transit for the elderly - will spawn more use of "vehicles" like
the Segway
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT)]?
Maybe not the single-rider segway, but i mean some smaller-scale, non-gas-
powered vehicles which allow comfy and safer travel for a few people?

~~~
icebraining
In my city, we have these small electric buses[1], designed to travel at a
reduced speed. Not exactly tremendously innovative, but still, they're much
nicer than regular buses, and since they stop anywhere (just wave), they're
helpful for people with reduced mobility.

[1] [http://www.stopcancerportugal.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03...](http://www.stopcancerportugal.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/Flexibus.jpg)

------
nerdponx
My question is whether this will help or hurt access by the elderly and
disabled to supermarkets and other big-box stores like Home Depot.

~~~
CodeWriter23
It's an interesting question, though it is somewhat suburb-centric.

In NYC, the elderly and disabled have no natural access to these kinds of
services unless they live a block or two away from such an establishment, for
the simple reason that hardly anyone living in NYC owns a car. Yes, they can
take a cab, and that makes it feasible, but economically speaking, the most
common outcome is these people are dependent on the bodega on their block to
provide their food.

~~~
avani
I see no reason to automatically equate "elderly and disabled" with "poor"
(bodega?!). Ubers/Lyfts are not terribly expensive compared to owning and
maintaining a car+insurance in the city, especially if only used for shopping
and not commuting.

~~~
c0riander
In NYC, small grocery stores (i.e. one of many retail storefronts on a block)
are often colloquially referred to as bodegas, no matter the economic status
of the area.

------
parennoob
As a relatively infrequent HN user, what is the time limit up to which stories
can be re-posted and end up as new stories?

I posted this yesterday on HN, and am glad to see some discussion around it.
Just curious that the new submission didn't get mapped back to the old one –
I've usually get linked back to an already posted article if I repost it after
a short time.

------
mjevans
I was hoping for something closer to an arcology, society assimilating
disperse buildings in to a more cohesive urban /plan/ that services their
transportation needs and encourages high quality space within the middle.

This is more like the budget version of that. Don't really solve the big
issues, don't really improve the central areas.

What would make this better is consolidation; actually moving the parking to
the interlink point of the node, making it faster for a pedestrian to get from
there to their home, or another point within the node. Improving the center so
that it's more of an actual park, possibly with the shopping at level around
it. Raising the standard of integration, interaction, and building codes for
noise/fire suppression.

------
akamaka
Is there a list or map of all the superblocks that have already been built in
Barcelona? I've tried Googling for more info, but all I find are articles
praising the urban planning concepts.

~~~
stevoski
There exists only one superblock so far, and it is a prototype. It was created
last month.

The hype is well ahead of the reality.

You can find plans for more superblocks, but the official website is mostly in
Catalan only, so it might not be too helpful to you (assuming you don't speak
Catalan)

~~~
akamaka
Thank you very much for the info! I spent so much time searching in vain for
these superblocks, but that was more than a month ago, so now it makes sense.

------
xchaotic
It's not the first time I read about Barcelona but it is more than just street
layout that makes a city tick. It's the people, culture, history, weather,
waste and delivery trucks. So you can't just do the exact same thing to other
cities and hope that it works.

------
GunboatDiplomat
Wait, aren't these superblocks doing exactly what all the hip urbanists
complain about the suburban culdesacs do?

~~~
Ericson2314
Your typical American cul-de-sac is completely dead. All buildings are >30
feet from street, and no commercial anything within walking distance.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow. They
create tiered street systems with feeder roads. "Hip" urbanists are always on
about how that's a bad thing. These superblocks do the exact same thing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The argument about culdesacs is that they don't allow traffic to flow.

That's not an "argument" \-- that's simply a fact that is what proponents
praise them for (keeping neigborhoods quite and safe by keeping out through
traffic by providing no access to anywhere traffic would want to go) and what
critics criticize them for (preventing efficient transit or foot traffic by
lengthening routes to any road that provides access to any place you'd like to
go.)

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
So if that's a bad thing, then why are the self-same urbanists proposing that
it's a good thing?

~~~
dragonwriter
(1) I don't see evidence that its, in general, the _same_ people praising
superblocks as criticizing superblocks, and more importantly

(2) I don't see evidence that they do the same thing, so even if it is the
same people, there's no inherent inconsistency: both reduce local traffic, but
by very different means which have different effects. Superblocks _don 't_
create a hierarchical network which favors long travel routes but prevents
through traffic, superblocks don't create a road system that lacks through
access on main corridors within easy walking distant so as to support mass
transit, and superblocks don't increase walking/bike travel distance by the
manner in which they reduce local motor vehicle traffic.

------
Samantha1989
Seems like a utopia until you factor in the winter climate.

~~~
CydeWeys
I live in NYC and ... in the winter, on cold days, people just wear heavy
coats. It doesn't stop them from doing the things they need to do, like go to
work or buy groceries. There's way too many people here for everyone to take
cars anyway, regardless of heating requirements. Traffic is already in
gridlock conditions for many hours of the day in the summer, so it's not like
you could add any trips in the winter for people who don't want to walk.

The real solution, although we're starting to go tangential here, is to do
what Toronto has done and build a massive city-spanning series of underground
pedestrian passages and malls. I've walked through a large part of the system
and it is pretty astounding.

Here's a map of it:
[http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Economic%20Develo...](http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Economic%20Development%20&%20Culture/Tourism%20Services/Files/pdf/PATH-
Map.pdf)

~~~
Samantha1989
I'm from Toronto, that's what informed my original comment. The path is
primarily used by commuters with offices in the downtown core. There aren't
typically places you would choose to spend prolonged time in - they're often
closed on weekends. The idea of 'superblocks' is a great ideal, but needs to
be adapted, not duplicated for cold climates. Agree that cities in generally
should be much better suited to walking.

~~~
CydeWeys
We're fortunate enough here in NYC that it doesn't get down to Toronto-levels
of cold very frequently, meaning that the construction of something similar to
the PATH hasn't been necessary. I think the superblock layout would work
pretty much unedited here. There might be a few super cold days in some
winters that'll make you just want to hate life, but the subway is already the
solution that most people use for that, and adding superblocks isn't going to
make anyone's walk to the subway any longer -- it'll actually make it shorter,
since there's fewer pedestrian crossings to stop for.

I like the other commenter's idea of above-ground enclosed passages with
access to sunlight and windows. That sounds need. Vegas actually has something
sort of similar on the Strip, but for different reasons. I think that, at
least in NYC, something like this is orthogonal to the issue of superblocks;
most people already aren't using cars to escape the warmth anyway, so if this
kind of solution were necessary it would've already been made, with
superblocks having little effect.

------
pdog
_> Imagine if streets were for strolling, intersections were for playing and
cars were almost never allowed._

Why is it considered progress to go back to how urban life was several
centuries ago? Peter Thiel is right; we used to be optimistic about the future
being better than today.

~~~
macNchz
What would you consider progress, then? To me, this concept of the future
sounds better than today. I'm optimistic that people have begun to realize
that car-scale cities aren't the only option, and that human-scale
neighborhoods can be great places to live. I see this as progress informed by
past mistakes (that is, designing cities and neighborhoods around the needs of
cars).

