15 minute cities
 

Have you heard of this idea? Thoughts?

In the exceptionally unlikely event that there is anyone other than me that does not know WTF this is, https://www.15minutecity.com/about

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but, aren't most larger cities already like that? I've worked in NYC before. It appears that a person could spend a lot of their life within a small radius. I live in the "sticks" compared to NYC. I'm not sure how well that would work around here. I have read both sides of the story concerning this idea. They would be efficient and convenient. But, they could also be used as a means of control.

This is the first time I've spent thinking about this issue. I live in a town of 10.2K and everything is available to me within a 10-minute bicycle ride. I can understand that not being the case in larger population centers. The fact that this target is a modest 15-minutes is pretty telling that the issue of access is not being addressed by conventional urban planning.

They are talking about limiting the times you can leave your zones in the UK, so how will going to work figure? holidays, big family shops? visiting friends and family? going to different restaurants cinemas etc? it will also be linked to video surveillance everywhere.

Who is they? And who gave them the right to dictate rules such as that? Again, convenience or control? All rhetorical questions.
As a bike rider, I can hold my own in commuting. As seen with the pandemic, I bet the rule makers will not follow their own guidelines.

Yes, spend 15 minutes in San Francisco or PDX and you want to puke.

What happens if you need medical attention outside your zone? And your time allotment is already used?
most smaller hospitals have been closed around here. Bought up by the big conglomerates and shut down.

It doesn’t seem like this idea will work. Or is it designed that way?

You will own nothing, eat ze bugs in your 15 minute city and be happy, or else.

The joke I have with the family is that where I live now is 5 minutes from everything.

I think that may be true in the dense urban environment, but it falls apart quickly when one gets out the the single occupancy homes.

In the times I've lived in a city, I frequently walked to the grocery store, but it always seemed like I was the only one. There would be many homes that would be a mile or two further from the store that the walk would be very inconvenient.

In my old Portland neighborhood, two grocery store chains, Safeway and Albertsons merged. And, so they rapidly closed half their stores. I was lucky that they kept the store closest to my home, and closed the one furthest, but it could easily have been the opposite.

When I was in St. Louis, it was very common that they decided to fumigate me while I was out walking.

Other than the grocery store, the selection of other services fell away quickly, or would require a couple mile walk.

I have spent time in a small city in Italy, where one could walk to essentially the entire city rather quickly. It was a unique environment with streets to small to fit many cars.

It seems to me that in a world full of cars (and suburbs) that this idea could never take off considering the repeating services/locations that would be needed to make it possible. The locations would raise their own overhead for less customer base. Can't see any near term reality for this outside the massive cities of the world. The suburb that I live in has some services nearby, such as grocery and gas, but it is simply impossible to get all you need without car access or paying too much for someone to drive you in theirs such as Uber and Lyft.

This was classically the case in most large urban areas. Still true in many large cities but it isn't nearly as prevalent as it was 50+ years ago. Small independent stores have a tough time competing with chains in the modern marketplace and chains often abandon urban cores in favor of the fringe areas where land is cheaper and provisions for parking more attainable. Reinventing the walkable urban neighborhood sounds good and has been successful in some areas but I think development patterns render this as unlikely for most people or most locations.

This concept is based on research done in the 1960's and 1970's with regard to public transit. If people had to drive to a bus stop or train station they tended to not stop but continue their trip in their automobile. The problem in the USA is that local planners let the land developers configure new housing and it was low density housing tracks with houses widely spaced to allow for attached garages for autos. The distances between houses increased by more than 50% as a result. Check out the lots dimensions in older areas that were built when light rail was available as in parts of New Orleans as compared to the Leviton subdivisions.

Once lots have been divided up and single family houses built on them it is not feasible to have adequate density for public transit. The one bright spot is the trend toward infilling with ADUs (additional dwelling units) designed for having a place for older folks to live near sons and daughters. This is also providing less expensive housing for many people in areas that are already being served by local police, fire, sewer, and water service, which saves cities money.

I'm satisfied with my "low density housing". Not everybody wants to live on top of each other. I understand that it makes sense on paper; however, it doesn't sound like fun if you don't have good neighbors. In this area, the high density housing is way cheaper due to lack of desirability.

Again- I think it should be up to an individual; not some politician that lives in a mansion on top of a hill.

I live in a rural area and always will. I'm all in favor of working to create better urban neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean I plan to live in one. Certainly in the US no one is suggesting everyone should live in such an area, but their existence improves the community and that improves my life indirectly.

I grew up in NYC, which, as noted, was pretty much a 15 minute city all along. If you factor the subway system, and some bike riding, you had a staggering level of convenience, including the ability to go out and party without worrying how you'd get home.

Now I live in bear in burbs, and it's not quite the same. While the bike makes most daily living easy, there are more things that demand a car, or at least an Uber.

I believe in the 15 minute concept, but remind people that life isn't binary. Shy of the 15 minute idea, we can arrange our lives on spectrum of time or convenience. One may live in less dense areas but be less dependent on cars, and use them more or less frequently.

Since a decent percentage of daily travel is commuting to work, we can start by living closer to work, of working closer to where we want to live. This is easier to work out if we assign more value to our time, and properly factor transportation cost. Once we realize that a one hour each way commute is equivalent to a 25-35% pay cut, rejiggering our life gets easier.

So while many here would consider carless as goal, I'm very happy to think about less car as a place to start.

All well and good until you want to travel outside of your area, visit friends? go to a different store, try a new restaurant , go on vacation? These will be restricted..

I believe you would simply have to pay extra to travel outside of your zone (maybe unless you could verify that it was a bona-fide emergency).

I do believe that urban planning has failed us, and that we need to build more "walkable neighborhoods," but we are not there now, and unfortunately, in this "utopian society," those that are lower income who need to live further away will be the ones who suffer most.

This reminds me of the song "Red Barchetta' by Rush.

The 15 minute city concept isn't at all about control. It's about making an area so that you can get what you need by walking less than 15 minutes. This is a positive, not some dastardly consipiracy. Many major cities devote too much area towards cars. It's always a bit shocking to be in NYC and see how much of the city is devoted to cars and how much damage that does.
15 minute city goes along fairly well with charging extra for driving in the dense parts. There are no travel restrictions, you just have to pay to drive. And some roads will be converted to pedestrian areas. Which is as it should be.

There is a disturbing amount of right wing misinformation in this thread.

I'm one target demographic for 15 minute cities. Not the conspiracy theory they want to control your lives but urban design changes achieved primarily via eliminating zoning restrictions. Zoning restrictions that disallowed multi-family housing, disallowed small businesses mixed with housing. I want walkability, meaning the ability to walk to the goods and services I need.

I think zoning restrictions are part of the reason mom and pop shops have been displaced by big boxes. Indeed it is impossible to compete on price, but a neighborhood store can compete on convenience. That's been made impossible with zoning restrictions. Maybe my own version of a conspiracy theory, but I think restrictions that prevent someone from deciding to open a small shop in a neighborhood don't serve anyone but the big box stores.

I understand there are people who want to live in car suburbia, be surrounded by manicured lawns, and never see another human that isn't in a car. Dallas is their dream city. We have a billion acres of that (ok, slight exaggeration). It's extreme paranoia for those people, who are a part of that extremely dominant culture, to freak out when other people want their own neighborhoods to be something different.

The funny thing about a lot of the people that live in suburbia is that if they live near a big city, they go downtown fairly frequently. They probably would go there more often if it was easier and faster to get to, i.e., public transportation. They want what it offers.

A lot of fear in this post. Probably rooted in misinformation some people are spreading on the Internet.

Small towns are already usually 15-minute cities. Most European (and some North American) large cities are also already 15-minute cities. It's about the idea that the cities should be organized in a way that you can do most of your daily activities in the area that is within 15 minute walk from your home. All cities built before the 1960s were built that way, and outside the US they are still built that way.

When you live in 15-minute city no one forces you to live within that 15-minute-walk area. If you want to go around the entire city in your car or bus or train or on your bicycle - go ahead, no one is stopping you. The point is that you shouldn't be forced to travel to another side of the town and to have a car to do basic everyday stuff.

Surely you realize urban access by car is restricted in many, many way and is in effect, stopped in some places. So, please stop spreading misinformation there.

Basically, the concept seems to be concentrated on separating a person from their car. Sorry, but restricting a person's ability to travel by means of further "taxation" is a form of control. Vehicle ownership already has numerous costs designed to support the highway system. Conspiracy or not, where does this new tax money go?
Has anybody given any consideration how easily another pandemic would spread in one of these cities? There seems to be a utopian vision that everybody will be happy and mingling in the empty streets. Sorry for the questioning attitude- still waiting for the source of the first pandemic to be divulged.

Overall, the concept sounds efficient. Most likely a good idea. I still don't think there is much variation from what already exists in larger cities. In NY, it seemed that a person needed to be "well off" to afford the expense of vehicle ownership. It appears that the 15 minute city concept envisions that process as well. As always, the source of issues occurs when some try to force their ideas onto others.