Cities host our lived experiences. They are more than mere words in reports or policy documents; they are tangible environments that shape our daily lives. These urban spaces consist of physical materials molded into structures and places that influence how we move, connect, and think. Yet, it’s easy to lose sight of this reality, especially when cities are viewed as abstractions—defined by terms like “economies,” and “social networks,” rather than as physical entities with concrete impacts. City planning suffers from a disconnection between policy and physical reality. Politicians, municipal workers, and decision-makers frequently focus on metrics like unit counts, floor space ratios, and density figures without considering the real-world implications for communities. This tendency to reduce cities to numbers, graphs, and other abstractions can result in sweeping changes that ignore the day-to-day experiences of residents and are detrimental to how the city works and feels on the ground. In contrast to abstract planning, Barcelona’s Superilla initiative demonstrates a more grounded approach to urban transformation. The Superilla, a neighborhood-level project, reimagined public space by prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists over cars. While initial policies set targets, the real impact was seen in the physical changes experienced by residents. Within a decade, the initiative had transformed the city in meaningful ways. The Superilla‘s success was rooted in a clear strategy: Prioritize all citizens by ensuring that public space serves the community. Set cross-disciplinary targets to address social, environmental, and economic goals. Launch small, viable pilot projects that could be tested and refined. Use evidence collection and analysis to inform decisions and adjust strategies. Scale successful interventions incrementally while discarding ineffective models. Empower local decision-making to keep citizens engaged and involved. This approach allowed the city to evolve naturally, adapting to changing circumstances while avoiding the risks associated with drastic, large-scale reforms. The importance of incremental, evidence-based planning is not a new idea. It goes back to the earliest settlements and is found in Cerdà’s Eixample design in Barcelona, despite being a large-scale masterplan. As discussed in previous pieces in the Barcelona Chronicles, the 19th-century urban plan was based on rigorous analysis, including demographic studies, building assessments, and environmental factors such as sun and wind patterns. Cerdà’s plan laid a flexible framework for gradual implementation and ongoing refinements over decades. However, even Cerdà’s method had its flaws. As we’ve seen, the Superilla addressed the system-wide problems that developed from the initial plan. More recently, the failures of Modernist architecture and urban planning in the mid-20th century serve as a cautionary tale. These large-scale projects often imposed untested models on cities, leading to outcomes that will negatively impact urban life for generations to come. The lesson is clear: large-scale planning can succeed only with a solid foundation of data, flexibility to adapt, and meaningful citizen feedback. In Vancouver, recent initiatives like the Broadway Plan and Transit-Oriented Area regulations ignored these principles, failing to prioritize neighborhoods and their residents . They involve broad, large-scale transformations that have not been sufficiently tested through evidence-based methods. Their reforms aim to radically reshape thousands of hectares of land and existing communities but overlook critical factors, including infrastructure impacts, park space provisions, and the specific needs of neighbourhoods, to name a few. The city’s Social Housing Initiative and Vancouver Plan also overlook these essential considerations, favouring developers’ interests over citizens’ quality of life. The demolition of community-oriented urban fabric is planned without proper assessment of those who will be affected or what is and isn’t working in these areas. This is a recipe for disaster. The risks associated with these untested policies are significant; if they fail, the consequences will be severe and difficult to reverse. Longstanding, more affordable, housing in older buildings once lost can never be recaptured. This is why incremental approaches are preferred. On a smaller scale, Vancouver’s parklet program exemplifies the value of community-focused, incremental urban design, but it also has many shortcomings in comparison to Barcelona’s counterparts. The initiative began as a pilot project from 2011 to 2013, replacing parking spaces with public areas where people could gather and socialize. The city officially adopted the program in 2016, and parklets can now be found across Vancouver, maintained in partnership with local businesses and organizations. Despite their popularity, the parklet program remains limited in scope. The interventions are still considered “temporary,” with little discussion about expanding the program or integrating it into a broader urban planning strategy for the city. Roughly half remain in downtown Vancouver, with few other neighbourhoods receiving the benefit. This reflects a larger pattern in the city’s urban design efforts, where successful initiatives are left in a state of stagnation rather than evolving into permanent solutions. Other recent projects, like separated bike lanes and community public plazas, share similar challenges. While they offer benefits, they lack a systematic approach that could help scale them up across the city and create a cohesive, long-term vision. An example of a more ambitious urban transformation is Vancouver’s Arbutus Walk , a mixed-use development that replaced a former industrial site over two decades ago. The project prioritized pedestrians and cyclists with a central greenway and converting existing roads into public spaces. Drawing of Arbutus Walk central greenway concept. Courtesy of Scot Hein & Sean McEwen. Community involvement played a significant role in shaping the project, leading to the choice of mid-rise housing over high-rise towers, which allowed for more sunlight, open spaces, and a diverse demographic
