Let's continue with our theme of city blocks and talk about another city with a noteworthy street grid: Barcelona. Up until the middle of the 19th century, Barcelona was a tiny medieval city hemmed in by 6 km of walls and totalling just over 2 square kilometers. If you look at a map of the city today, it's pretty easy to see where this was:

This was of course done for military purposes. Barcelona's medieval walls helped the city resist siege after siege. But the result was also overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and a generally low life expectancy. So after much debate, it was eventually decided that the walls would need to come down and that the city would need to expand outward.

This then raised the question: how should it be done?

Enter a civil engineer named Ildefons Cerdà. Created in 1860, the Cerdá Plan for Barcelona was a continuous grid of blocks intended to guide the future growth of the city, similar to what the Commissioners' Plan did for Manhattan. The blocks measured exactly 113.3 by 113.3 meters and each was to have a central open space of at least 800 square meters.

In his original plan, the streets were to be 35 meters wide. But supposedly these were narrowed to no more than 20 to 30 meters due to criticism from the public. Wide streets and more lanes were, I guess, not seen as a benefit in the second half of the 19th century. Either this, or landowners simply wanted bigger buildings.

The Cerdá Plan got approved in 1860 and, today, the city looks like this:

One particularly unique feature of this plan was that the blocks all had/have chamfered corners. This improved visibility at the intersections, as well as created opportunities for public spaces and other uses. For better or for worse, today, you'll find parking for cars and scooters, bike share stations, ramps leading to underground garages, patios, and more.

The heights of the buildings on each block were also intended to be capped at a consistent height. But even with relatively few tall buildings, the Cerdà Plan led to one of the densest cities in Europe. Today, it is also viewed as a highly livable and desirable city. Hence why the city announced a total ban on short-term rentals. Too popular.

Now for a comparison. Last week we spoke about Salt Lake City's large city blocks (here and here). And so for fun, here's what these blocks would look like on top of Barcelona:

The most obvious takeaway is that Salt Lake City has larger city blocks than Barcelona, and that's one reason why, objectively, Barcelona is more walkable and urban than SLC. But I think you could also view this graphic as a tremendous opportunity.

Barcelona is in the midst of rethinking its urban fabric around something called "superblocks." The idea here is to cluster blocks together and then concentrate transit and vehicular traffic along its edges, creating a more pedestrian-focused center. For example, in its largest form, a superblock might be a 3 x 3 grid, creating a grouping of 9 city blocks.

But it doesn't necessarily need to be a 3 x 3 grid. Other permutations are possible and the city plans to eventually introduce over 500 of them.

The first superblock was implemented in 2017 and, not surprisingly, it improved air quality, increased quietness, and led to a significant decrease in car usage (-92%). Interestingly enough, it only led to a moderate increase in car traffic on surrounding streets (+3%). Traffic can be a funny thing.

Creating superblocks out of smaller blocks is naturally easier than the opposite. You have an existing grid to work with. But there's no reason that the opposite can't also be done. And I think that's one way to look at Salt Lake City's street grid. It already has its superblocks. Now it's just a question of creating all of its smaller blocks.

Street networks tend to be pretty sticky. Meaning, they tend not to change very much, or at all, over time. We have spoken about this before, over the years.

A good example of this is Broadway in Manhattan. Broadway is a world-famous street. And it's perhaps no coincidence that it's also the only street that runs the full length of Manhattan and breaks across the city's regular street grid.

The exact reasons for this are somewhat nuanced. And for a more fulsome backstory, I recommend you watch Daniel Steiner's recent video on the topic (embedded above).

It is alleged that Broadway started out as the Wickquasgeck trail. Meaning it pre-dates the arrival of Europeans to the island. But regardless, we know that it came before New York's famed Commissioners' Plan of 1811, which is the plan that gave the city its grid.

So it would appear that, sometimes, even the most rational of plans can be no match for something even stronger: a street that already exists.

I’m late in writing this blog post because I was up in Collingwood for the day snowboarding. I’m exhausted, but I do have something to say.

One of the things I always find interesting when I’m driving north of the city is how far Toronto’s major north-south streets extend. Go out to Aurora or Newmarket and you’ll still come across many familiar faces such as Jane, Keele, Dufferin, Bathurst and Yonge Street. And the distance between each of them is exactly the same as it is in the city: 2 kilometres.

This may not seem like much of a big deal, but have you ever wondered how this street grid was established?

These streets are actually concession roads. And they were used to subdivide undeveloped land in Upper and Lower Canada into a grid that could then be further subdivided into farming lots. Each square of the grid is 2 km x 2 km, or 1,000 acres.

Look at a map of the Greater Toronto Area and you’ll see it:

But what I find most intriguing about this grid system is that it was designed around farming—not our current use case. The intent was to further subdivide each 1,000 acre lot into smaller 100 acre farming lots. And these concession roads were for access—they weren’t city blocks.

By comparison, there’s another city that’s famously run off a regular street grid. You may have heard of it. It’s called New York. And its street grid was established in the Commissioner’s Plan of 1811. Some even go so far as to say that it’s “the single most important document in New York’s development." 

But New York’s grid is much different than the one I’m talking about. Because of its smaller scale (20 blocks a mile going north-south), New York’s was decidedly urban. It was meant for city building.

Now, in the case of Toronto, concession roads obviously never stopped us from developing a thriving city. We filled in each square to make them as urban as we needed them to be. But as planning ideals changed, so did the infilling of those squares. Our grid was flexible enough to accommodate everything from farm land to suburban subdivisions.

But I can’t help but wonder how the Greater Toronto Area would have turned out had we, quite simply, chosen a different size of square. What if instead of 2 km x 2 km, we had made them 1 km x 1 km? Or what if we made them even smaller? What would the Toronto region look like today?

Sometimes it may seem like a simple decision, but in reality the implications are huge.