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