
Superblocks: how Barcelona is taking city streets back from cars - based2
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12342806/barcelona-superblocks
======
beloch
This article covers things from a pedestrian's perspective, but it honestly
looks like there may be benefits for drivers in this system too.

For one, this plan immediately _halves_ the number of busy intersections along
a given stretch of road (and reduces them to a third if multiple superblocks
are built adjacent to one another). Yes, no intersections have been physically
removed, but the number of vehicles using those intersections is drastically
reduced. Traffic signals at those intersections can be optimized to reduce
stop frequency/duration for traffic staying on the road meant for cars.

If you live in one of these superblocks, the last kilometer to your house may
be slower but, if there are enough other superblocks along your path, your
overall trip time may actually be reduced. Fewer stops also mean reduced fuel
consumption and lower emissions.

Of course, a big issue is that some streets will now be carrying twice the
traffic they were previously built for. Even if that traffic flows better,
there may be problems. Making street-side parking on these streets illegal
could increase the effective number of lanes available to traffic. After all,
street-side parking should be plentiful inside the blocks, and the eventual
plan is to build off-street garages.

I'm not convinced superblocks will be bad for drivers.

~~~
txutxu
The article asserts many things about the city.

I don't bring my Mum to Barcelona by a few reasons, and one of them is that
she could be unable to cross most roads, as a pedestrian, on time for the
traffic light.

Of course that's one of the smallest problems, delinquency being the main one
(attracted more in this months by the tourism).

Also people is uncivil with old persons here, the locals and the tourists.

Walking on bike in the sidewalk thinking you have preference over pedestrians
also is common here. I've see many fights start by this.

The traffic? for me it's all day car horns. Without any good reason. Always
just for the sake of the mass hysteria.

Stressed drivers pushing pedestrians to finish the cross. The same when
walking, people push you for the space, even if they are just slow walking and
doing shopping and you go clearly to work.

All those theories about traffic are nice. The article tries to make it even
more nice asserting stuff.

I don't want my childs to grow up in barcelona, and I don't want my mum to
live alone in this city like she can do in others.

I have attended and helped enough persons who had been stolen, kicked,
violated, run overs, and what not in just two years.

I cannot take a single beer, without watch traffic problems in Barcelona. And
I'm talking of a two channels street, where the main traffic mass, can vary
from 5 to 9 cars in the same direction.

Oh you are the owner of this car? a bus just did break all the side of your
car, he did go away without stopping. Take man, I did a photo, you can see the
car number. This was yesterday.

Traffic is better than Madrid. But still is a "bad thing" for the quality of
life of the city. Also in barcelona you need air conditioner, or sleep with
the windows open... this is... all night long and in the main hours, old, big,
vibrating and poorly driven trucks and buses all around. stopping with squeaky
brakes, in each of those corners, and starting again with the engine noise
that could not pass a decibel measurement by police.

It mixes with the drunken people and nightly prostitution noise... so at the
end, the harley/truck/whatever is just one more noise in the Barcelona's non-
stopping symphony.

Squared streets and all that, bike accidents are common here, bike Vs
pedestrian problems too. Old people and children cannot walk alone even in
relaxed areas. And the traffic (for me that don't own vehicles) and the air
pollution is one of the worse things when I try to "live" here.

~~~
HelloNurse
In the middle of off-topic complaints about Barcelona, there are some
objectionable observations.

\- Air pollution is a problem in many parts of the city, but it needs to be
addressed with the promotion and imposition of cleaner engines. Reducing car
use is only a secondary objective of a plan to reclaim streets.

\- Bike vs. obstacle and bike vs. pedestrian accidents are much less dangerous
than car accidents.

\- Like in other cities, there's plenty of quiet corners with few tourists and
few cars. Noisy people concentrate in the city center and traffic in the
appropriate wide streets like everywhere else, despite the great number of
tourists it isn't hell on Earth.

------
superuser2
I feel compelled to dissent against initiatives to directly take cars off the
road, rather than improve alternatives.

Growing up in the suburbs without a car, I was _really_ excited about carless
urban life. Then I actually experienced it (Hyde Park, Chicago).

I'm on the opposite corner of the neighborhood from the business districts, so
a little errand like CVS or the grocery store is around half an hour by foot
each way. The bus or shuttle is usually a wash, given the time spent waiting
for it. A bigger errand like Target or Macy's is a special occasion, taking
about 50 minutes each way (walk to bus, wait for bus, ride bus, wait for
train, ride train, walk from train station, or sometimes take yet another
bus). A downtown or North Side restaurant, once you get tired of the local
ones, is a similar ordeal.

Feeling trapped in the neighborhood was mostly an annoyance. I adapted by
buying most things from Amazon (Prime is well worth it) and carefully planning
shopping lists for brick-and-mortar stores. After a while I got tired the
local restaurants, so I pretty much stopped eating out. I assuaged my
claustrophobia by burning either money (Uber) or time to go downtown every few
weekends, but generally spent as little money as possible when doing so.
Still, it grew more annoying over a few years.

The turning point came when I realized that it took about as long to get from
my apartment to the downtown train station (about 7 miles) as it did from that
train station to Milwaukee (90 miles).

I bought a car recently, and my quality of life shot up dramatically.
Distances that used to be a big deal are now nothing. Even if I'm going
somewhere without cheap parking, I can drive directly to a train station
instead of taking the bus. Life moves faster. I get to enjoy the city more
often.

If the CTA would run more frequent, smaller vehicles on its routes I would
easily go carless again. But instead it sounds like the approach is just to
degrade the experience of owning a car until it's as bad as public transit,
rather than the other way around. When that happens, it's off to the suburbs,
I guess.

~~~
ethanbond
If you take cars off the roads, people will rebuild (well, reorganize) their
cities to account for it. Public transit obviously needs to be better pretty
much everywhere in the US, but people also don't want to pay to make it
better.

I'm a proponent of simply wiping out parking in most areas. That will
incentivize people not to drive, therefore to walk/transit, therefore to value
the transit systems and the design of their cities.

It's a serious issue of sunk cost, but eventually we need to bite the bullet
and start moving in the other direction.

~~~
superuser2
It takes a LONG time to build out serious transit infrastructure. Like 30
years (see Seattle's recent ballot initiative). You're asking basically an
entire generation to have shitty mobility for most of their working lives, so
that they will vote to build trains for their children.

More likely they will just leave the cities.

Cities do adapt to poor mobility: local businesses get to charge huge markup
because they don't have to compete with the rest of the city. I don't think
that's particularly good for consumers.

~~~
ethanbond
You're asking basically every generation after us to have shitty environmental
health and shitty cities for the entirety of their lives. Also, if you need a
car to be mobile enough to live your life, you _already_ have shitty mobility.
You should have the ability to live your life _without_ having to pay the tens
of thousands of dollars that owning a car demands [0].

You could get rid of cars and with all that newly available street space add a
bunch of electric buses for the interim. You could even up taxi availability
and efficacy, seeing as there would be minimal traffic from non-public
sources, further reducing the costs of using them. This would also make the
city significantly more bike friendly, even before the cultural reorganization
into self-sufficient neighborhoods.

There would also be a significantly reduced strain on pretty much every social
institution there is. In NYC on August 2nd 2016 alone, the NYPD tended to at
least 357 accidents [1]. Reducing this would free up valuable police and
medical resources.

Oh, and it will also help to save our species from impending environmental
doom.

0\. [https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/total-cost-owning-
car/](https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/total-cost-owning-car/)

1\. [https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Motor-
Vehic...](https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD-Motor-Vehicle-
Collisions/h9gi-nx95/data)

~~~
superuser2
>shitty environmental health

People would lose essentially nothing by stepping down from SUVs/crossovers to
compact sedans/hatchbacks. We could start there. There's also the issue of
average age: driving an older car is a classic case of negative externality.
Driver saves money, everyone else suffers for their worse emissions and fuel
efficiency. These are both excellent targets for tighter regulation.

My argument here is that policy should be at _least_ net-neutral on quality of
life.

If you "simply wip[e] out parking" and don't do anything else, I claim that's
bad policy because it reduces quality of life.

If you wipe out parking AND deploy electric buses or whatever such that
people's lives at least don't get worse, then I'm with you.

>There would also be a significantly reduced strain on pretty much every
social institution there is.

Except, of course, the transit agency, which has to actually have the funding
and the competence to step up its game to not only stay neutral under
increased demand, but also improve enough that drivers' quality-of-life is
flat.

Local services are also funded by local economic activity, which generally
requires that people have viable transportation.

> before the cultural reorganization into self-sufficient neighborhoods.

Which do you think is better for consumers: a whole bunch of hyper-local
monopolies, or citywide competition and economies of scale? Economics provides
very little support for the former.

~~~
ethanbond
Sure. Now go ahead and try to regulate those, like many have been trying for
literally decades. We've gotten better, but it's still not enough and our
cities/suburbs still suffer from the non-environmental side effects of
designing cities around cars. Such as, you know, having to purchase a car to
be mobile.

I would really like a large scale holistic solution, but again, we've been
having this debate for decades and we haven't moved fast enough. If we
continue to build our cities for cars, then we will continue to need cars.

Reducing parking in cities is one decision that could have large scale effects
and that doesn't require a dictatorship or nationwide collective epiphany to
institute.

And yes, higher prices hurt _consumers_ , as in they damage the one facet of
an entire human being that's responsible for purchasing things. But there are
many other facets of a human being that would be much better off with fewer
cars around them, and I dare say that _many_ of those facets are more
important to preserve than ease of consumption. The human race survived for
many thousands of years with nothing even resembling an automobile, and now
after 100 years you're positing that we simply cannot go on without them?

~~~
superuser2
>Reducing parking in cities is one decision that could have large scale
effects and that doesn't require a dictatorship or nationwide collective
epiphany to institute.

Making cities worse is likely to have the effect of driving people out of
them. You do in fact need a collective epiphany (or a Constitutional amendment
to shut down freedom of movement) to get people to accept that they simply
need to live worse lives in the short and medium terms so that their children
can live better ones. If you make that happen, then maybe we can pay off the
national debt too.

~~~
ethanbond
What are you talking about? Removing, say, 10% of parking spots per year for 8
years wouldn't require any of that. It would result in the same frustration
that people already have and already cope with: "it sucks to park in the
city."

It's clear this isn't going anywhere, have a good weekend!

~~~
barrkel
People would vote out politicians that put in place such obvious frustration-
increasing measures.

IMO the "solution" is necessarily holistic and incremental. Create a fast
intra-city link, and you've effectively increased the density of the two areas
joined by the link. If you think about space in terms of time required to go
from point A to point B using a given subset of transport methods[1], fast
point-to-point links warp space and cause it to overlap. Density is the
lifeblood of cities, just as lack of density is what hollows out cities.
Increased density means employees and consumers can live closer to businesses
and entertainment. Increase the density enough, and private transport isn't
required as much.

Anti-car policies aren't going to increase this time-to-destination-as-a-
measure-of-space density much. In fact, without something to replace them,
they will decrease effective density.

[1] See e.g. [https://petertrotman.com/special/london-underground-
travel-t...](https://petertrotman.com/special/london-underground-travel-time-
map/map.html)

~~~
ethanbond
I appreciate your interesting stance on this, but you're missing my point. I
am not saying "ban cars and everything is fixed." I am saying "we will not fix
our cities as long as we continue to invest in cars."

The best way I can think of to get people to divest from cars in a fair,
gradual, legal, cheap, and realistic way is to eliminate parking over time.

~~~
barrkel
Did you even read what I said? I directly refuted your argument! Your
suggestion is both politically difficult and would damage cities by decreasing
the very thing that makes them cities: the time proximity between people!

~~~
vasilipupkin
You don't have to eliminate parking at all to achieve this. All you have to do
is shift city taxation towards taxing parking more in relative terms.
Encourage people to use existing public transportation more

~~~
mamon
>> All you have to do is shift city taxation towards taxing parking more

And that's exactly what's wrong with this idea: in a democratic society such
taxation changes would be temoporary at best - people would just vote for
politicians that would change it back during the next elections.

On the other hand, gradualy increasing quality of public transportation by
investing more money in it would be something that noone would protest
against, and once public transportation is equaly or more convenient than car
travel people would switch on their own.

~~~
vasilipupkin
People are not stupid, they are often uninformed. Politicians' job is to
advocate for good policies in a way that people understand and support

------
paulsutter
I love dense walkable cities, though I'd love to hear more about traffic
capacity on the outer streets (for example, by getting rid of parking there),
then of course the numbers on the briefly mentioned parking plan, and whether
subway capacity will be increased (yay), etc.

I ask because I dearly hope that it works, pedestrian-dominated city areas are
wonderful. I especially love the idea of getting parked cars off most streets.
I've always hoped self driving cars will <edit> reduce the need for parking
</edit>, but I'm just a dreamer and these guys have to make a real city work
so I'd love to hear the math on it.

EDIT: it looks like bike sharing ("Bicing") and a new "Orthogonal Bus System"
are key aspects of the transportation plan:

[http://smartcity.bcn.cat/en/superblocks.html](http://smartcity.bcn.cat/en/superblocks.html)

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

~~~
gkya
How exactly self-driving cars would help for pedestrian-dominated urban areas?

~~~
happyslobro
You could send the car back home after it drops you off, or release it to pick
up someone else. That is, if it is fully autonomous. I suspect that long
before then, the "self driving" term is going to get abused by marketing until
it means nothing more than "autonomously maintains RPM relative to pedal
angle".

~~~
Avshalom
Well on one hand you can move parking lots, on the other hand you end up with
a lot of empty cars driving around which means even more traffic.

~~~
marcosdumay
More cars on fewer, wider streets, while those same cars are not required to
go through the narrower streets.

I don't think there's any simple answer for what the overall effect will be.
It will probably vary a lot from place to place.

------
bluejekyll
To me the answer is making dedicated travel roads for bicycles and
pedestrians. This idea is ok, in that it slows cars down, and maybe that's
enough, but what I'd love in a city like San Francisco are dedicated roads
that allow bicycles to safely travel across the entire city without having to
worry about getting run down at every intersection.

There are some streets that are safer than others, but what would be great is
if say Valencia, Cortland, Market, Haight, Cole, Columbus and some other roads
through downtown (like minna St. and Stevenson) were dedicated to bikes. Some
have main bus lines, so maybe allow those to continue to operate as mixed use
with bikes and buses. The intention is to make bike thorough fares which are
safe from collisions with cars and especially delivery trucks.

This in my mind is the fastest way to transition from a car gridlocked city to
one where alternative things like bikes, and battery assisted bikes, can
operate safely. Most travel in cities is under 2 miles, perfect for biking (I
have a bike that has seats for both my kids, which makes it great for families
too).

Safety is probably the largest reason why more people don't bicycle, and
targeting main shopping districts would encourage their use to get to those
places, while also increasing the general enjoyment of those areas, with the
added benefit of increasing traffic to businesses in those areas.

~~~
superuser2
Chicago has a few streets like these and they're great. The bike line is
protected from traffic by the parking lane. Parallel parking a car is easier,
and the bikes are protected from the driver-side doors as well as traffic. The
pedestrian lane is, of course, the sidewalk.

You just have to really commit - a few protected blocks is nice, but people
may not feel safe until it's the majority of their journey. Left turns are
still intimidating.

>delivery trucks.

I'm extremely perturbed when there are large trucks stopped in the street.
Loading docks are a thing - that building's decision to not have one is a
classic case of dumping what should be its costs on everyone else.

I'm more sympathetic to taxi/uber pickups and dropoffs, since although they
also tend to block traffic (and frequently encroach on the bike lane) it's
still better than more cars driving and parking.

~~~
bluejekyll
> I'm sympathetic to taxi/uber

Not me. In SF at least they tend to block the bike lane and force bikes into
vehicle traffic. For confident cyclists this is ok, but for many I can see
that they do dumb things like try to pass on the right or not signal their
intention to enter traffic.

This is why I suggest that the best thing would be to fully dedicate the
entire road. As to fully protected lanes, this is good, but like you said,
still leaves issues like left turns.

------
bb101
Very interesting idea. However, losing two through-streets out of every three
will triple the traffic on the remaining through-street.

The people living on the interior of the superblocks will enjoy a more
peaceful car-free environment, but the people overlooking the through-streets
will experience more noise, pollution and congestion.

I wonder how Barcelona plans to compensate the residents of through-streets
for the newly introduced inconvenience (and predictably lowered real-estate
value with respect to their neighbours).

~~~
jurip
I'd expect the total automobile traffic to be reduced, rather than all of it
concentrating on the through streets. Making driving less convenient will push
people who don't have to drive to leave their cars at home and go with public
transport, bike or foot instead.

~~~
massysett
It can also do a number of other things:

* cause people not to travel at all, thus keeping money in their pockets rather than spending it to benefit the economy

* cause people who do not live in the city to drive to other places--places where their preferred mode of transportation is accommodated--to work or transact business

* cause people who live in the city to leave due to increasing frustration with their inability to go where they wish.

~~~
lhopki01
It can also do a number of things:

* causes people to not travel far away and to spend their money in the local economy

* cause an increase in people using public transport to get into the city because it is now a nice experience inside the city

* increase the health of individuals that are walking more and breathing less pollution thus making the city a more desirable place to live

* revitalise local businesses in each area leading to a more diverse stronger local business

* increase the amount people spend because they're walking past shops rather than driving past them and ignoring them

------
unabst
After reading the article I was ready to book a one way ticket to Barcelona!
City looks amazing, the traffic diagrams are on point, and I just love the
sound of the word "superblock" (so nintendo). But after reading all the HN
comments, I think I'm good where I am...

Tokyo is amazing without a car. Most people live on the outskirts, which is
still only 20 or 30 minutes away by train, and without a car, there is no
search for parking. Trains come every 5 minutes. Shibuya, Shinjuku, Ginza,
Akiharabara, Harajuku... Of course, the money and sacrifices made for
infrastructure are insane.

LA is amazing with a car as long as you know the freeway exits and know where
to park. Santa Monica, DTLA, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Koreatown, San
Gabriel.. Good food, good people, good weather, and wide straight streets
(compared to Japan). It's a little spread out, and DTLA is still a bit too
tiny and too dirty to brag about, but culturally, it has to be the melting pot
capital of the universe. You can't tell if someone is rich or poor, black or
white, high or drunk, a man or a woman... and no one could care less. Good
freedom.

But my favorite city so far has to be Fukuoka. A miniature Tokyo, but with
better food, lower cost of living, and is small enough to get around with a
bicycle. Very attractive dialect, and very attractive people. It's also an
hour to Tokyo by plane, and business men ride 747s like getting on a train.

I'm currently in LA.

------
pmontra
Great idea! The only puzzling point is the 10 km/h limit. In my experience
it's almost impossible to go that slow. Better to set the limit at 20 km/h and
cope with the conditions of the road. It will be slow for bicycles too. It
forces bikers to go on the roads for cars or be very patient. Maybe it's the
intended effect but I don't approve it.

~~~
masklinn
> Great idea! The only puzzling point is the 10 km/h limit. In my experience
> it's almost impossible to go that slow.

Are you in europe? Keep in mind most EU drivers drive stick, and most cars in
barcelona would be "city" cars, C-segment or below (compact and smaller in US
segmentation). Depends on the exact car of course, but in my experience 1st
and slow 2nd should be well into that range, and trivial to achieve on flat
road (either gas up in 1st, or if the car has enough torque shift to second
and idle along).

~~~
honkhonkpants
This is actually a big problem in the USA. Everyone has a powerful car with
automatic transmission. On level ground these will eventually accelerate to
15MPH unless the driver uses the brake. A manual transmission, or electric
drive, is ever so much more civilized.

~~~
vosper
I'd guess that people in the US spend a lot more time on freeways than
Europeans do. A powerful engine is good for that (quietness, ability to
overtake / maintain speed on hills). Automatic transmissions are great for
freeways because they allow for cruise control. I have a pet theory that if
everyone on the freeway used cruise control all the time the freeway would be
safer and less stressful. That's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to
self-driving cars :)

Edit: I would imagine it would be straightforward to restrict the max speed
that a vehicle can reach without the drivers foot on the pedal (there may even
already be such a rule). The ability to regulate the speed already exists
within the cruise control system.

~~~
ghaff
You can have cruise control on a stick. I rarely use it but my manual car has
it. On most (barring long climbs and descents) freeways with free moving
traffic, you pretty much put the stick in top gear and leave it. The big win
with an automatic is stop and go traffic.

~~~
vosper
Are there limitations to cruise control on manual? Presumably if it's a true
manual gearbox the car can't shift automatically, so if you were to encounter
an upward slope that required a down-shift what happens?

~~~
detaro
Yes, it is limited to what the car can do in that gear, so you have to
downshift manually (and re-set the cruise control).

------
wwarner
I just got back from Barcelona, and was surprised by the level of air
pollution. The smog never disappears, even after a heavy rain. I learned that
Barcelona has never met EU minimum air quality standards since they were
established 22 years ago. And all cars and trucks run on diesel. If I were
planning their transportation future, I'd be looking to be the earliest
adopter of electric transport in Europe. Super blocks appeal to me, but they
don't address the air quality issue directly enough to really excite me.

------
njharman
Even before the superblock idea, that first picture of existing Barcelona
blocks looks so massively better than anything I've seen in USA. I looked
hard, twice, before reading article cause I was sure it was is was artist
rendering rather than reality.

So, uniform, dense, but no sky scrapers, corners cut off, wide wide streets,
wide sidewalks, interior (to block) "courtyards".

I want to move to Barcelona!

~~~
jacquesm
It's one of the nicest cities in Europe but the Spanish economy is still so
far down that many Spanish people with marketable skills are to be found all
over Europe.

~~~
chris_7
Would people from Barcelona not object to being called "Spanish"?

~~~
jacquesm
Last I checked Barcelona was still in Spain. If they object I'm fine with it
but I'm not going to 'tune' my comments to whether or not someone may or may
not be offended when for the rest of the world 'Catalonia' is solidly part of
Spain.

Frisians are Dutch too, and Welsh are British and so on.

All of the above are also Europeans...

~~~
faragon
Most people in Barcelona are not "pro-independence". Most "pro-independence"
people come from rural areas, or small cities. Industrial and touristic areas
of Catalan region of Spain are not nationalists/separatists. That sentiment
comes much like in other regions, because of the crisis. P.S. I live in
Barcelona.

~~~
scalesolved
Slightly different personal data point from my guiri perspective living in
Barcelona I'd say that of the 12-15 Catalans that I know well the clear
majority are pro independence.

Seems polls have between 60-80% of Catalans want independence :
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poll-finds-
th...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poll-finds-that-60-of-
catalans-want-independence-9208329.html)

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29982960](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-29982960)

As the urban region of Barcelona has around 5 million residents (7.5 million
in Catalunya) the urban areas do have a lot of support for the movement.

~~~
faragon
You "forget" that the "80%" was on an unofficial and illegal (currently on
Court) poll/"referendum" with massive abstention, because supported mostly by
Catalan nationalist parties, and not by constitutionalists (the ones
supporting the Rule of Law). Real pro-independency support in Catalan regions
is about 35-45%, being much less in industrial and touristic areas (you can
find official statistics about the subject -INE and CEO-).

In my opinion, nationalist agitprop in Catalonia, more than reaching the
independence from Spain, it will "break" Catalan region psychologically in
two, because of the polarization, much like it happens in North Ireland or
Belgium. I hope it doesn't happen in Barcelona, as it is a nice place to live
and invest, with really nice and open minded people.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29478415](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-29478415)

------
enjoylife
I just came back from an extended trip in Barcelona, and I saw first hand how
there is plenty of wasted space in neighborhoods.

Many intersections between dense housing areas are overly large hexagons where
you must annoyingly walk around dedicated parking spaces to cross streets.
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/22802717995](https://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/22802717995)

Hopefully the city will have buy-in from the residents, as this plan seems to
also modify the bus routes. And from what I saw, the locals have ingrained
those stops in their daily routines, which might cause some backlash when
those drastically change.

~~~
kristiandupont
In my opinion, those blocks (known as Cerdá's manzanas) create a much nicer
space than normal ones. It also seems safer traffic-wise. True, it takes a bit
longer to cross as a pedestrian but I think that's worth the price.

~~~
soci
As a Barcelona citizen I can not agree more on your comment. Cerdà blocks are
much better than regular square corners, as a pederestian those "dead spaces"
are a pleasure to walk, and as a driver makes crossroads much safer.

------
Artlav
Hm, i find this kinda hard to port over to a typical chaotic/radial european
city.

In Moscow, for example, there are wide radial and circular roads, from which
branches of small roads diffuse into the meat of the city under pretty much
every angle.

Any attempts to rope "superblocks" off would likely collapse the traffic
completely - there aren't any alternative roads like a grid would have.

~~~
13of40
Having spent time in both cities, I don't think the residential urban areas of
Moscow have the same problem as Barcelona does. If you look closely between
all of those Brezhnev era apartment blocks, you'll find that the soviets
packed them with green space, playgrounds, etc. If anything, Moscow is short
on parking lots. (edit: Not advocating tearing up the playgrounds for parking
lots.)

------
sharpercoder
The Netherlands has municipal areas designed mostly like the same principle.
Low-speed areas with high houding densities are connected using main roads. A
very nice example of this concept is shown in Houten, near Utrecht. A
roundabout road over the whole area connects to living areas inwards.

------
angelftbcn
As a local that likes to follow urbanism topics, I can tell you that this idea
has been floating around for a number of years, but it's far from clear it's
ever going to be implemented. A few political parties have expressed lip
support, but applying such a radical change would require a lot of political
courage and a solid majority.

One of the problems is that the grid in Barcelona is quite imperfect. A
similar plan to prioritize bus transit across orthogonal lines has been far
from successful, and my take is that one of the reasons is that orthogonal
lines have ended up not being quite orthogonal at all.

Anyway it's been the policy of the city government at least from the 90s to
reduce the surface area dedicated to the cars. Interestingly most of the
recent interventions have been on what would be on the superblocks concept
considered 'fast' streets (mostly by increasing the side of the sidewalks
[Arago, Balmes St, Diagonal, General Mitre] and by reorganization massive
intersections [Glories, Lesseps].

And there are a few committed plans also in this direction [Via Laietana,
Urquinaona].

So there are really two competing visions here:

* Make "fast" streets more pedestrian-friendly, kill urban highways, make the grid work in a homogenous way, increase surface for pedestrians across all the city. * Create a hierarchy of streets (with fast/slow streets)

And to me it's far from clear which vision is going to win.

------
jacquesm
Barcelona is also quite busy taking the city back from the tourists.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11643...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11643802/Incoming-
Barcelona-mayor-wants-to-introduce-tourist-cap.html)

------
Someone
Counterpoint: [http://behoovingmoving.com/2016/08/06/superblock-
hopscotch-i...](http://behoovingmoving.com/2016/08/06/superblock-hopscotch-in-
barthelona/):

 _" The new bollards that will be planted to stop cars cutting through the
middle of the superblocks won’t stop that menace of the Mediterranean, the
motor scooter rider"_

 _" In Barcelona two out of three streets will be easy to cross, but make a
mistake when crossing the third"_

I think this is a worthy experiment, but I wouldn't roll it out across the
city without knowing whether it will work.

Because to me, the existing blocks simply look too massive to become a truly
pedestrian neighborhood, I also would look for ways to cut paths through some
of the blocks.

~~~
slight
There are plenty of scooters in Barcelona but honestly I've never noticed
generally worse behaviour from them than anyone else, except maybe starting
off from lights early, but it seems everyone is guilty of that here.

Aside from that however, as a cyclist from the UK, I've been very pleasantly
surprised by the lack of aggressive driving since I've been living here. I
very very rarely feel threatened by other road users on my bike, except by
Bicing (city-wide bike rental/'sharing' scheme) users, and I think that's just
because Bicing is used by people that don't cycle regularly so aren't very
experienced.

Also there are already an increasing number of semi-pedestrianised streets in
the centre of town and they work fine, cars, scooters and bikes go down them
too but very slowly and usually only if they really need to because there are
faster routes if you're through traffic.

------
collyw
To be honest I doubt it will make that much difference. Driving here is a pain
in the arse. You don't get much speed up between traffic lights unless you are
on one of the big streets like Diagonal or Arago.

Still, I look forward to seeing how it goes.

------
cagataygurturk
Another Ada Colau BS. Barcelona might be very popular, but it is a village,
nearly dead out of summer. Cars are already 2nd class citizens, there is no
traffic except taxis and motorcycles. Now they are just closing the traffic to
some streets, it is not a futuristic super intelligent plan, nothing special.
Nobody was using car and everybody was walking everywhere and the same
situation will continue, our lives won't change at all. Don't threat this plan
like the biggest urbanistic invention of the century. It is nothing more than
internal municipal legislation change. It is not making the half of the NYC
pedesterian area.

------
hellsch
I live in Barcelona and most of the people are not happy. A simple math
problem for you in order to understand why. Currently with a top speed of
50kmh the average speed is 36kmh. Now reducing the top speed partially to
10kmh how fast will be the average? Well, it can be argued that the traffic
will shift to the faster streets on the periphery of the super blocks, so this
streets will have to grow in order to be able to handle the traffic, this can
be challenging in terms of space.

But what really pisses my catalan friends and colleagues is that the
superblock will come first and accordingly the tweaks on the periphery. This
will cause homongous traffic jams because of the construction works on the
periphery of the superblocks.

So this is aimless activism, those who know traffic and transportation in
Barcelona will agree that smart traffic lights will make a huge impact on car
pollution. Together with Park and ride; offering a fast transportation to
enter and leave the city would be amazing.

~~~
ocschwar
Driving at top speed just means you wait longer at the next red light. Average
speed will probably not drop at all.

~~~
hellsch
Good point, additionally there are more parameters that influence the average
speed. But the reality is that I now need at least 30% longer to reach certain
areas. Ironically this areas with now huge pedestrian sidewalks are full of
shops and other business which I now try to avoid.

------
praptak
It's a verbatim application of one of the original Christopher Alexander's
architectural and urban design patterns. "49\. Looped local roads" is the
pattern being applied here. Alexander even mentions that a grid can be
modified to create the loops although without explicitly mentioning the
superblock idea.

------
transfire
On some superblocks it seems to me they could connect the corner blocks
instead of the center block as the one way lanes. This would leave the old
middle roads free of cars altogether giving pedestrians more space and maybe
let the cars go a little faster (10 km/h is rather unbearably slow slow).

~~~
masklinn
> On some superblocks it seems to me they could connect the corner blocks
> instead of the center block as the one way lanes.

> This would leave the old middle roads free of cars altogether giving
> pedestrians more space

You seem to be missing the point entirely. The in-block roads are for when you
have something to do in the block, which is why you can't cross a block
through them (they loop and send you back the way you came from). You arrive,
you do your thing and you leave. The entire block is pedestrian space, which
is why the speed limit is pedestrian range.

> maybe let the cars go a little faster (10 km/h is rather unbearably slow
> slow).

1\. that would defeat the entire point of superblocks by still having fast
vehicles within them

2\. at 400m long, in-block loops can be traversed entirely in 2mn, since
you've got something to do there (otherwise you'd go around the superblock)
that seems perfectly fine.

~~~
transfire
I didn't miss the point. I just think some blocks might benefit more from the
different arrangement. It's a trade off.

~~~
masklinn
The trade off is in not banning motor vehicles entirely from superblocks.

------
johngalt
This seems like the urban version of road hierarchy. With the local roads
being more like a large shared driveway. Similar to how cul-de-sacs are used
in suburban settings.

The place to spend the money on improvements would be the roads outside of the
9 block cube. Obviously they would now have a lot more traffic.

~~~
collyw
Personally I love the idea of a car free city. (No idea how that might work).
I am pretty sure a lot of the negativity of city living comes from the
constant noise of traffic and horns.

~~~
clarry
Horns are a cultural thing. In some places they honk all the time. In .fi
you're not supposed to use the horn except to warn of immediate danger. I can
take a walk in town and get a headache from the noise without ever hearing a
horn.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _In America, we can’t even agree on the idea that cities are for people. We
> still decry bike lanes as a "war on cars," even in our allegedly progressive
> West Coast cities._

This seems disingenuous. I like bikes, but they are not more "people-y" than
cars.

I think Bloomberg's filling-in of Times Square was more radical and effective
[1]. By turning it into a pedestrian space, it's prioritized space for living
and being over transiting. I'm hopeful about plans to turn the length of
Broadway into a park.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square)

~~~
Someone
_" I like bikes, but they are not more "people-y" than cars"_

I disagree. Consider these:

\- Cyclists, like pedestrians, are outside. Car drivers sit inside, shielded
by metal and, possibly dark, windows.

\- Pedestrians and cyclists look each other in the eye way more than happens
between car drivers and pedestrians/cyclists.

\- The distance between cyclists passing each other is a meter; for car
drivers, it is 3 meters or more.

\- A cyclist sharing space with pedestrians can and will disembark and start
walking if the space gets too busy; a car driver cannot and will not.

Compared to the difference between car drivers and cyclists, the difference
between cyclists and pedestrians is minute.

------
smartbit
This is a variant of the Verkeerscirculatieplan [0] introduced on September
19, 1977 in Groningen, The Netherlands. This map
[http://www.regiocanons.nl/beeld/Groningen/Groningen/_250/Y39...](http://www.regiocanons.nl/beeld/Groningen/Groningen/_250/Y39.jpg)
[1] shows how the old center was devided in 4 sectors (Noord, Oost, Zuid and
West) and car traffic was not allowed to cross sectors borders, they had to
travel out back to the canal-ring (diepenring in Groningen-language ‘diep’ ~
related to english ‘deep' = canal) first. Bicycles, buses and taxis where
allowed to go from one sector to another. It was introduced by the local
government consisting of young politicians who took power by a sort of a Coup
in the local Social Democratic party. These young guys aged 25-30 years had
the vision and courage to give back the city center to pedestrians & bicycles.
They reintroduced the daily markets on the central squares (tuesday,
wednesday, friday and saturday) which until then where used as parking-lots.
To counter objections of local shopowners against the removal of many parking
places near their shops, they negotioated with the Shell Oil pensionfund to
invest in a parkingbuilding a the beginning of the Haddingestraat [2] 50m from
the former parkinglot on the Vismarkt. In return Shell Oil was allowed to have
gas-stations on the main exit roads of Groningen.

The Groningen Verkeerscirculatieplan has been an example to many cities in the
past 40 years, now including for Barcelona.

[0]
[https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeerscirculatieplan_Groning...](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeerscirculatieplan_Groningen)

[1]
[http://www.regiocanons.nl/groningen/groningen/verkeerscircul...](http://www.regiocanons.nl/groningen/groningen/verkeerscirculatieplan)

[2]
[https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Haddingestraat+2,+9711+KD+G...](https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Haddingestraat+2,+9711+KD+Groningen/@53.2167608,6.5651567,18z)

------
drcross
The elephant in the room is that personal mobility is going to undergo a
complete redesign in the coming decade as vehicles drive for themselves. This
will bring about a complete change in usage patterns so doing anything in this
space is pre-mature and we should hold off to see how society's requirements
change. For example maybe on street parking will become a thing of the past as
your self driving Uber goes on it's way to pick up new passengers after it
drops you off. Perhaps we'll have more drop-off points like at an airport
instead.

~~~
maxsilver
> The elephant in the room is that personal mobility is going to undergo a
> complete redesign in the coming decade as vehicles drive for themselves.

The way the argument is going right now, personal mobility won't get
redesigned -- it will get eliminated.

Faux-urbanists will continue to fight for (and win) at getting cars more-or-
less banned in cities. Cars will continue to get better at zero-emissions and
self-driving, but that won't stop people from hating them. Attempts at better
public transit will be promoted, but nothing nearly as
fast/efficient/convenient as cars currently are.

I suspect in the coming decades, people simply won't be allowed to move around
as much, and folks will succeed in convincing people that this is "better" for
them. Personal mobility will be a concept for history books, like privacy.

~~~
astrange
People will certainly not be able to move around in cars after they use up all
the oil.

BTW, there are 14 million people in Tokyo (or maybe 40 million) and probably
never more than one car per family. They don't seem to have a problem, maybe
because they can actually afford to build train lines and don't have
commercial zoning over there.

[http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/29291/if-we-
lowered...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/29291/if-we-lowered-
transit-construction-costs-we-could-build-more-transit/)

------
dmead
They're called squares. lots of east coast cities have them except they're
smaller and more manageable.

for instance, Philadelphia has these:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitler_Square,_Philadelphia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitler_Square,_Philadelphia)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_(Philadelphia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_\(Philadelphia\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Square_(Philadelphi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Square_\(Philadelphia\))

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

not to mention the smaller ones:

[http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/02/04/a-guide-to-
phila...](http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/02/04/a-guide-to-
philadelphias-squares/)

the pictures of Barcelona look like a living nightmare. could you imagine
trying to get essential services into the middle of one of those?

good luck getting an ambulance into the middle of one of those on a crowded
Saturday night.

honestly, it looks more like the beginning of a block from judge dred than
anything else.

~~~
Oletros
> good luck getting an ambulance into the middle of one of those on a crowded
> Saturday night.

Crowded?

~~~
dmead
engrish?

~~~
Oletros
I'm sorry, I'm not fortunate enough to be a native English speaker or having
formal English learning?

But I though that a simple word was enough to be understood.

I'll do my best, why do you say the streets would be crowded?

Next time, you can save your insult and think that not everybody is an English
speaker.

------
ArtDev
The Netherlands has already done this perfectly. A third of the road is for
cars, a third for bikes and a third for pedestrians.

Thanks to elaborate signage and colored pavement they have made riding a bike
around cars actually safe. A bike can hold a lot of groceries!

------
brooklyndude
NYC does try. But overall it's beyond a disaster. Is there even a thinker
anywhere here? People just sit for hours in traffic and just know one cares.

------
fiatjaf
You meant the Barcelona government, not Barcelona, the city.

------
jowiar
Worth noting regarding Barcelona is that this is, to a great extent,
retrofitting a concept that already exists within the city to "new" parts. In
Ciutat Vella, there are a few "outer" thoroughfares, with the inner streets
shared between cars and pedestrians. They are, however, narrow to the point
where they are not really navigable by anything larger than a Smart Car moving
at rolling speed, and it's very clear that cars are second-class citizens.
Thus, this isn't really introducing a new "social order" as if this were to be
done anywhere in the US.

~~~
HelloNurse
I see it more as an attempt to revise and scale up the already exceptional
block-structured design of the Eixample, which is already trying to pack as
much as possible (backyards, terraces, parking...) into the interior of the
blocks.

------
serge2k
> We still decry bike lanes as a "war on cars," even in our allegedly
> progressive West Coast cities

Do we? I see a lot more articles like this one about how we have to take back
the streets from cars.

------
massysett
"Modern cities are ruled by cars."

"Some folks, however, still cling to the old idea that cities are for people,"

How strange. Every time I see a car, one or more people are in it. I also see
other vehicles, such as trucks, that not only have a person in it, they also
are carrying things (such as food or building materials) that other people
need.

~~~
goldfeld
Everything humans do are for humans. What's your point? Transportation doesn't
equal car, but more car space equals less pedestrian space.

~~~
massysett
My point is it is ridiculous to make statements like "the city is ruled by the
car." The car is not a living thing. It cannot rule anything.

All the cars are there because they serve people. People find them to be
useful.

What people are really saying when they claim the city is "ruled" by cars is
that they believe there are too many cars--which is a rather odd statement,
seeing as cars are useful and people voluntarily buy and use them.

It's odd that these people are motivated not by their love for walking, not by
their love of particular kinds of spaces, and not by their desire for a
certain lifestyle. Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars. This
is an immediately off-putting argument since most people do not hate their
cars. If they would focus on getting more of what they want, rather than less
of what they do not want, then maybe they would be able to craft winning
solutions that do not rely on taking useful things away from people.

~~~
dalke
> "What people are really saying .. they believe there are too many cars"

No. While I'm certain there are some who believe that, it is not a universal
belief.

Which routes are the most direct, the ones for drivers, the ones for walkers,
or the ones for cyclists? If the car route is most direct, while the safe
biking route requires 25% more distance, then the car has been placed ahead of
other modalities.

If walkers and cyclists are limited in where they can cross the street, then
the system favors the car driver.

If drivers aren't required to stop for foot traffic, then the system favors
the car driver.

If there are 6 lane surface roads with a crosswalk, but no pedestrian island
or other safe refuge for slow walkers, then the system favors the car driver.

Are there ways to run most errands without using a car?

Are the roads constructed to maximize vehicle throughput? Or minimize
maintenance costs? Or minimize the number of traffic deaths?

How much of vehicle parking is subsidized? (Don't forget zoning requirements
for the number of parking spaces.)

The more the system favors driving over other modalities, the more reasonable
it is to say that "the city is ruled by the car", at least metaphorically.

> Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars.

This is not true. The "Vision Zero" plan, for example, is motivated by the
desire for no traffic deaths, not from a dislike for cars.

Austin, TX is putting that plan into place. At
[http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-
for-t...](http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-for-traffic/)
you can see the logo for "Year of Mobility 2016", which includes all major
transport modalities. It is not based on a dislike of cars.

