Reclaim the Cities: Germany's superblock movement

Ragnhild Sørensen_ChangingCities
We launched the bicycle refer endum in Berlin in 2015/16. We were the first bicycle referendum in Germany to collect over 100,000 signatures within three and a half weeks for a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly Berlin. And in the course of this it was clear: we need donations, we need to have an organization behind us, we can't do this as individuals. As a result, we founded Changing Cities as an association with the aim of not only implementing the cycling decision, but also promoting liveable cities.

We didn't just want to be an association that has a general meeting once a year and then you can submit motions and the board decides what to do. The basic idea is to be fast and agile. This is a completely different way of being active in modern society if we want to achieve something politically.

Above all, we want to be quick and able to react to the world, which is why we said we only need 12 members. But in principle, anyone who comes along and says: "I'm unhappy with the way the public space on my doorstep is, I want to change something!" can join.

The basic idea is to be fast and agile. This is a completely different way of being active in modern society if we want to achieve something politically.

Ragnhild_CC

It's important because otherwise nothing will happen. In the bicycle referendum [editor's note: citizens' survey on local transportation change 2016], we found that There was a huge need for change and transformation among the population in Berlin at the time.

But the politicians and the administration said: Nope, we don't see it at all. And that's why we've always framed it by saying that we have an urban population that wants much, much more, that wants its environment to be very different from what is currently expected by most politicians and administrations and in the whole discourse.

We want to represent these people, but we can only do this if we succeed in politicizing transport policy - which at that time, i.e. 2015/16, was more or less an engineering science - and say: we are "only" citizens, we are "only" civil society, but we live here and we know what is happening on our doorstep and we are also experts to a certain extent who can have a say . We can't just leave these really, really important decisions to a very, very few experts; we have to enter into a dialog.

Of course, we need the experts, but we need to enter into a dialog between civil society and experts, administration and politics in order to drive forward the transport transition. If we just say we'll wait for them to do it, then we won't make any progress.

Ragnhild_CC

There is slowly an awareness that something has to happen, also due to climate change. We have to react somewhere, we have to start reassessing and implementing things. But the persistent tendencies in administration and politics are stuck in a quagmire and it is very difficult for them to get out of it.

Sometimes there are good reasons. They might be older people who are no longer as agile. Sometimes it's simply people who have been doing something for 30-40 years and then you believe that it's right, even if the world has changed in the meantime. And sometimes there are very clear, ideological reasons: You don't want any change at all.
These forces of inertia are everywhere, and if we simply remain silent and don't set a very clear course and articulate what we want politically, then the forces of inertia will win out.

Ragnhild_CC
The background to this is that we started a kind of superblock movement in Berlin in 2020 - in Berlin they are called "Kiezblock" because there are "Kieze" in Berlin.
We started this movement partly out of frustration. We realized that although we had negotiated the mobility law beforehand and it was passed, implementation was progressing incredibly slowly. And then we said that we had to start somewhere else; it's obviously not enough to have a law to implement the transport transition. OK, what else can we do...?

And then we saw the ideas from Barcelona, which were very inspiring at the time. And we said, if they can do it, then we can do it too.

We then tried to start this movement in Berlin and now have 70 Kiezblock initiatives in Berlin alone, of which around 29 are currently being implemented. That happened incredibly quickly, and of course we realized: OK, if it works in Berlin, it will work elsewhere too. In other words, we've gained lots and lots of experience here: How it works, how it works, how you can organize so many people, what they have to do themselves, what they need from us, and so on.

And then we said: now we think we're ready to roll it out nationwide. The idea was to start with a conference for the groups that exist all over Germany; they keep calling us and saying: "...Can't you help, we'd love to!" - and then we said we had to bundle this together and try to give the go-ahead; that we would now go out and scale up superblocks nationwide.

Ragnhild_CC

Why does traffic that I don't want have to drive through my neighborhood? What's it doing here anyway?!
The air gets dirtier, it makes noise, the neighborhood becomes unsafe for children and senior citizens, for everyone - it makes no sense at all!

Of course, traffic could also choose a different route if we wanted it to. But that has to be organized, traffic engineering has to be introduced and various measures have to be taken. But basically, there is absolutely no reason why this non-local traffic should drive through such residential areas.

Ragnhild_CC
It's almost always about the parking spaces. They are the problem. People think I won't be able to park anywhere in the future.

It's this convenience that we've become accustomed to - you just have to say it: it's extremely convenient to sit in the car; it's raining a bit and then I drive five minutes to the bakery; and then I just do it because I can. ...Does that make sense?!
Is it efficient in terms of resource consumption? We [editor's note: the general public ] don't ask ourselves these questions. But these are the questions we [A.d. R.: Changing Cities] would like to ask, because we think we need to talk more about convenience, which is totally understandable.

But we simply have to get away from this car comfort to some extent, because we are gaining so much on other levels: In other words, everything from exercise to much healthier cities with less car traffic [editor's note: this includes more road safety for children and cyclists, noise and heat protection, seating options, especially for older people or breastfeeding mothers, more inclusion for people with limited mobility, free movement and communication spaces for everyone, etc.] - but that's a long way off because people can't even imagine it.

And when people then say "...But my parking space!", it's partly because for 70 years parking spaces have often cost nothing - in other words, people think: I have the right to park my car on the street. I always say: Yes, you might think - but why don't I have the right to put my cupboard in the parking lot?

Only cars are allowed to park there. It's only for vehicle traffic and it doesn't cost anything, even though public space is actually expensive and valuable!

Ragnhild_CC
I always like to give the example: Berlin's transportation planning calculates like this: The resident in Berlin should have to walk about 400 meters to the nearest mobility service. So that's what we expect from people who use public transport. That's right - it's not always right, sometimes it's a bit longer and it's not ideal everywhere - but at least that's the target.
You could also say: Okay, we'll take the mobility offer - and not just public transport, not just the bus, but also my car. And that would only be fair: it's not a disadvantage of car traffic, it's just equality if I have to walk 400 meters to my car.

In so many different ways, driving is privileged in relation to other things and we don't even know the other side ; we don't even think about what it's like to drive or walk on unsafe cycle paths or unsafe footpaths. Or when I have bus stops that are incredibly difficult to see for other traffic, and so on.

There is so much underprivileged mobility behavior and this [editor's note: mobility change] is not because we want to get rid of cars, but what would happen if we just created equal rights, then the world would suddenly look completely different." And I think that's a very good way to start a conversation with people, because these are simply things that they don't know.

Ragnhild_CC

It's always interdependent: depending on how you make the offer, people will accept it.
What else are we supposed to do? We can't take the bus ourselves, so if there's no one there, then there's no one there and if it's too dangerous to cycle, then you just don't cycle.

And these steering options, which are always sold as bans, people just need to understand that it is quite normal to create a framework for how traffic should function.
This has nothing to do with bans or that we don't want one or the other.
It has something to do with how we think what is good and right.
And with climate change, there are completely different requirements that actually need to be regulated.

The people who then say "...But my parking space!" are then indirectly saying "I don't want pedestrians to have better routes, more cycle paths or better public transport." Because you don't get both.

Ragnhild_CC
The whole concept is designed in such a way that you can still get everywhere with your car, at least at the beginning [A.d.R.: First step on the way to a fully comprehensive "superblock"]: You can get everywhere in the neighborhood, but you may not get there by the most direct route, as you did before, but have to take a small detour. However, we know from scientific research that this is only the case at the beginning.

This means that people will initially take the detour, but at some point they will think, I could walk the five meters or five minutes to the bakery instead of taking the car, because I now have to take what feels like a long detour . And this so-called traffic deflation is the be-all and end-all of how we can ultimately reduce traffic in the residential areas with the neighborhood blocks or superblocks. So it's really about avoiding car traffic and shifting to walking, cycling and public transport.

And we know that if people change and say, I'll leave my car behind and take my bike or walk or whatever instead, then there will be one less car on the roads and maybe other people will do the same.

And ultimately this means that those who are really dependent on their cars will get through more quickly. So, above all, commercial traffic, tradespeople, people with limited mobility, who really can't help themselves for whatever reason, suddenly have much smoother traffic than in the current situation. This is underestimated, partly because people can't imagine that it works like this.

Ragnhild_CC

Within this framework, we then said: Now we are developing standards, but we are not doing it like the FGSV. It's a closed circle, you can't get into it, there's no participation at all and it's completely non-transparent.

That's why we started an open process where we invited people - from the administration, from disability associations, everyone who had something to say - and asked them to evaluate the first draft. And they always gave input and said "...you've really forgotten us here" or "...we still have to take this into account" and then we tried to create an open process and what we presented at the Superblock conference was more or less the result of that. In other words, the attempt to define standards or norms for urban development in a completely open process together with society.
Of course, it's very good for the neighborhoods and superblocks to have something like this and it's also really helpful for the administration. But there is also the desire to integrate all parts of society again when we talk about something communal, such as public space.

Ragnhild_CC

I think it's a very big task for the people, the initiatives: "What do we do now, how do we move forward? This and that could be great here for my neighbourhood if it turned out like this, but how do I do it in the end?"
And I hope a little bit that with this conference, with organizing seminars, federal political demands, public relations work and everything else, we managed to give the participants concrete tools so that they can move forward.
I think that was very important. And I also think it was important that there were so many of us.

Because many people are so lone wolves and thought yes, how can I do this, who do I have to talk to and so on, and that is a very clear thing that came out of the conference: you need people. We have to do this together, it's not something that one or two people can do.

We need a wide range of people, we need the retailers in your superblock, you need the church, the school, the senior citizens' association, whatever - you have to persuade them all and get them on board, because only then will there be enough political pressure to really move the local authority. And if you then present them with the standards and say, "This is how it works", then it's difficult to say no.

Ragnhild_CC

That's often what people ask: "What can I do to somehow make things better here, so should I eat less meat or should I cycle or what should I do?"

And our answer is always: becoming politically active is what really makes a difference.

It's great if everyone cycles and eats less meat - but political engagement is what really makes a difference.