When people hear "Barcelona superblock", I think they're thinking of the individual city blocks which to be fair, are already huge and modular. (this is at least the confusion I originally had)
The idea with superblocks, is to take a cluster of city blocks and not allow through traffic in that block, instead guiding that traffic to flow around the perimeter of that cluster. Nothing here requires the city blocks to be built or look the way Barcelona's city blocks are built and look. All that's required is changes to the roads, and to try and encourage each cluster of blocks to have a mostly self sufficient set of amenities like a grocery store, cafe, etc.
In unicode art, if □ is a city Block surrounded by roads (-- and |) being used by traffic,
|_|
‾|□|‾
‾|‾|‾
then a 3x3 area of these blocks would look like _|_|_|_|_
|□|□|□|
‾|□̅|□̅|□̅|‾
‾|□̅|□̅|□̅|‾
‾|‾|‾|‾|‾
However, a superblock would look like this: _|_|_|_|_
|□ □ □|
‾|□ □ □|‾
‾|□ □ □|‾
‾|‾|‾|‾|‾
where the inside area is not easily accessible to car traffic. The structure of the block □ itself, doesn't actually matter.So yeah, that's not exactly what a "superblock" is - because very few of them exist without parking. Doing both parking + easily walkable gets expensive.
Getting rid of the parking doesn't work because I've never seen one of them "self sufficient" to the point of most people not having to commute (either to there for those who work there or from there for those who live there). Even if you find a job and a place to live in the same superblock, people are gonna (a) want to have options to leave that job in the future and (b) know people outside of those blocks.
All that to say: if the superblocks don't solve the need-for-a-car problem, they aren't gonna do much for the traffic or car-centric problem. And a mall surrounded by parking garages isn't exactly the walkable old European city people are wanting. So we're back to needing transit first. And then if you have the transit, do you need the superblocks - lots of walkable cities with streets open to cars.
Note that you don't have to replace car commuting to reduce car use on the margins. Most car journeys are short, e.g. going to the nearest shop, or taking children to/from school, and a superblock with parking on the edge can mean people don't drive for those journeys even if they still commute by car. Getting a household to go from 2 cars to 1 is just as much of a win as getting a 1-car household to eliminate it completely.
> And then if you have the transit, do you need the superblocks - lots of walkable cities with streets open to cars.
Such as? Where I live (Tokyo) most streets are "open" to cars in that a car can drive down them, but they're narrow with low speed limits and cars are expected to give way to pedestrians, which is much the same as on the inside of a superblock. You can't make a walkable city without putting walkers first.
It's somewhat obvious how to go from village, to hamlet, to town, to city with horses, to city with trams, to cities with a modern multi-facted public transit system. It's also pretty obvious how to go from horses to car dependent hellscape. It's not quite so obvious how to go from an extremely car-dependent hellscape like Houston or Atlanta or LA, to a walkable and bikable city with a modern public transit system like Amsterdam or London or Berlin.
I'm kind of overselling the thesis here some, because from one perspective, the Netherlands did go from quite car dependent to its current state in the past 50 years...on the other, the Atlanta and Houston metros each have 1/3 the population of the entire Netherlands and LA has 2/3.
Anyway, point being, the disbelief is in refactoring from Houston/Atlanta/LA to non-car designed cities, not so much in understanding how they can exist in the first place.
You really need to spend some significant time in a walkable city outside of the US to see the difference it makes.
Furthermore, the increased walkability reduces the number of bus stops needed and makes it way easier to construct bus lanes - which can get absolute priority at crossings.
Walkable cities which are open to cars are a contradiction. Cars are absolutely massive and need a disproportionate amount of space. As long as you need to sacrifice half your neighborhood to cars, it is not going to become walkable.
You seem to be stretching really hard here to try and conflate "no driving through them middle of the superblock" and "people in the superblock aren't allowed to have cars", but those aren't the same thing at all. You just put the parking in centralized places at the edge of the superblock, where economy of scale can apply.
If everyone still needs cars, you gotta put them somewhere. And the roads have to be big enough to accomodate the commuting and the inter-block traffic. If you put them on the perimeter and route the cars around the perimeter, you don't have a walkable city, you have a car-centric city of high-traffic roads people drive on to walk around little walkable islands. *Same even if you put them under the superblock.* Tons of these sorts of mini-downtown walkable areas in LA, for instance, but nobody's calling LA walkable.
Transit, transit, transit. You can't superblock your way around the need for it. "Walking to a car to drive to another part of town" instead of "Walking to a train to get to another part of town" is going to give you a dramatically different experience, since one of those is far, far more friendly to low-density SFH surrounding development than the other.
This problem is solved by public transit.
You're misunderstanding what a superblock is.
The blocks in Barcelona that look the same predate superblocks. The idea of a superblock -- making an NxN grid of blocks impermeable to through car traffic, basically -- could still be done in other cities with more irregular block patterns. It would be a little more complicated, of course, but it'd still be doable.
NYC is obviously walkable but walkable within boroughs. Nobody is walking from Midtown to LIC or Chinatown to BK?
In NYC, there are plenty of places exactly like Chicago. Not everywhere is a walker's paradise, and even in areas that are, car traffic is a dominating part of your life. NYC is great, but I am very jealous of Barcelona and even Paris. Very excited about congestion charging.
Edited to correct typo
All of SoMA is dominated by huge, high-speed pedestrian hostile thoroughfares; trains only go through one corridor so most of the city is excluded from connectivity (Muni is horribly slow and unreliable so you can't actually depend on it in daily life), not to mention the slow frequency, ear-splitting volume and noxious odors; affordability is downright awful so anyone middle-class couldn't experience it; and the whole city is filthy and dangerous so if you aren't a 20-something able-bodied large male walking in the middle of the day who ideally isn't a minority, you can't really make use of the freedom anyway (and even if you are crazy people will still try to pick fights with you for no reason... yeah never again). In SF's defense the bike-share more or less works given how tiny the city is. But don't ride your own bike or it'll be stolen in a week...