Barcelona is a good example of how to not make things homogeneous; the map layout can be similar, but each superblock has its own personality. Not only they are architecturally varied, there's difference in the kinds of businesses hosted in the ground floor. This superblock has a bakery, the next one holds the fire station, the next one is residential but with red brick, the next one has a bank, and so on. It is very different from walking in other "purely residential" blocks that are just closed to the world, looking inwards.

This doesn't sound like Barcelona's superblock concept at all. It sounds like you are talking about mere blocks.

The superblock concept only exists in a few places so far in Barcelona. It takes (usually) a 3 by 3 grid of blocks and closes the inner streets to though traffic, instead putting playgrounds, benches, bike lanes, and plants there.

Actually the density is so great that lots of blocks have a bakery, and most have a convenience store, and usually several kinds of other shops, like clothing or stationery.

I was amazed that there were two model train shops within 10 minutes walk of our place in Barcelona. In a dense city, specialist businesses can thrive.

Barcelona has a few pilot superblocks, five or six, but not nearly enough to make it 'boring'. You are perhaps thinking of the square grid, in place since the 19th century.

Part of what I love about modern western cities is how much verity there is in buildings. When I look out my window I see buildings of all different eras and design styles.

Some of them are “ugly” in a way but they still contribute to the aesthetic positively. One old 90s concrete office tower is fine, 30 identical ones would be ugly.

The thing that bothers me the most is housing prices that leave so many people out on the street. I think every person deserves housing. So more affordable housing, even if it looks “boring”, is exciting to me.

Affordable housing doesn’t have to mean 5 copy pasted towers lined up in a row. If hiring an architect for a unique design costs too much, then scatter the buildings so it’s 5 towers over 5 postcodes.

It's not the architect or design that costs. Building 5 identical houses next to each other is simply much cheaper and faster due to the economy of scales of prefabricating and delivering identical elements and being able to use the same machinery and crew to put them all up att once. Spreading the out over 5 postcodes means you need more people, more construction equipment, more infrastructure work etc. etc.

Maintenance over time is also easier and cheaper if the buildings are standardized.

Thanks for adding so much pertinent information to this discussion. Definitely appreciated.

Curious what city you are referring to?

Coming from northern Europe and now living in Tokyo, I'd say the capital city where I'm from (Stockholm) is a super boring in variety. The only thing going is the numerous parks they have, but buildings, new or old, are built very similar to other and incredibly boring. Got the similar feeling in London. All "planned" to the teeth to be static and not stick out. (old or new)

Compare that to Tokyo, where I've seen a rusty old house that looks like an haunted house 100m from sky scrapers at Toranomon Hills, or the small streets of Daikanyama where I could see a frigging Greek palace around the corner. All of this often not too far from a shrine that have idled there for hundreds of years.

> Got the similar feeling in London. All "planned" to the teeth to be static and not stick out. (old or new)

That reminded me of this The Economist article [1] about buildings in London: there are 'protected line of sight' which buildings have to avoid:

> Taller buildings [...] must not block designated views of various landmarks, which explains why some of the skyscrapers in the City of London are oddly shaped. The curious wedge-shaped Leadenhall Building, known as “the cheesegrater”, is intended to protect a view of St Paul’s Cathedral from a pub in Fleet Street. The design also means that the building cannot have a central concrete core, as in most skyscrapers. Instead, the floors are held up by an innovative steel exoskeleton. This makes for a thrilling journey up the building’s glass lifts. But it does add somewhat to the cost.

[1] https://www.economist.com/britain/2014/08/09/bodies-bombs-an...

Personally I'm thinking of Adelaide, Australia. It might not be the strongest example in the world but here is a photo that shows it off https://m3.efront.digital/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/iStock-...

Shiny modern towers next to historical buildings. All of the buildings in this photo are from a range of times and design styles. I think if you took any one of these buildings and made the rest look similar, the aesthetics would be degraded.

This brings up an interesting point which is what makes some cities interesting is their path dependent and organic nature.

So, can city planners facilitate organic growth that is able to reorient itself with changing times?

And vast miles of suburban sprawl coupled with endless roads is not boring?

It is. North American zoning certainly isn't ideal, IMHO. But a mix of superblocks, both dense and sparse mixed-zone housing, single family homes, and high rises would appeal to me. Just let people pick where they want to live.

I also find these superblocks a bit oppressive, TBH. If they were one option among many I might find them appealing, but as the _only_ option they seem a bit...dystopian. Very much like the endless suburbs you find in American cities. Do we really need an absolute all-encompassing housing ideology?

People over cars is opressive? I don’t understand this mentality

I don't like American-style suburbs, I'm not defending cars over people. I think the lack of public transportation in the US is a tragedy.

But "You must live in one of 100 identical walk-up 4-storey courtyard-facing brown brick blocks, with a limited selection of approved local community businesses, and commute or drive for anything else" seems oppressive, yeah. Some people want to live in shiny glass high rises, or pay a premium to have a private yard, or live on a busy street full of bars and clubs. We don't need to define the One True Housing for Everyone and then implement it city-wide, we could just put a few of these superblocks within cities. But Barcelona looks just as oppressive to me as endless American suburbs, though admittedly it may be more pleasant to live there.

Have you ever been to Barcelona or are you making assumptions from looking at an overhead view of the street grid? It’s one of the most pleasant and human scale cities to walk around in that exists.

There are people in those cars. I lived in the center of city for 9 years without a car and being walkable is great but you tend to end up limiting your life to a small area. Cars can enrich lives, open up opportunity and for families with small kids, make getting around more convenient. No need to be anti car to the point where cars are not an option anymore, optionality is key.

> North American zoning certainly isn't ideal, IMHO. But a mix of superblocks, both dense and sparse mixed-zone housing, single family homes, and high rises would appeal to me.

Take a look at Chicago from your mapping tool of choice. Slowly zoom out until the street names fall away and the minor roads start to disappear. The dominant feature is their 4x4 grid of major roads and it extends even to the close-in suburbs - especially in the north and south.

Perhaps you can call this the North American version of the superblock. Density is concentrated along these major roads (and the central business district, of course). The inner roads have that mix of single family homes, townhouses, high-rises, etc. depending on the neighborhood you are in.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why do you think putting up superblocks necessitates tearing down every single other block? Why do you think this gets rid of suburbs and low density housing outside of the city's core?

The grid in Barcelona started in Eixample neoghbourhoods. Check Gracia, Barceloneta, Horta, Gòtic for very different arrangements. I agree Barcelona needs more green though, too much asphalt.

The Manhattan layout is good for multi-routing between any two points - no preferred roads, all sharing the load together.

Good for cars maybe. Crap for people.