I’m not sure what the promotion is here? Most of EU and Eastern Europe is already like this.
Essentially, everyone would have to live in an apartment and be walking distance to everything.
Who funds the development? Who ensures job access? What about upward mobility if the encouragement is to stay within 15 mins?
Considering the US had one of the largest economic booms in history once their was easy access to travel (cars, commercial aircraft), I can’t help but to put on my tinfoil hat and ask “why”? Would this not place huge limitation on access??
On a side note: apartments and close quarters were the worse thing during COVID. Now immediately following that they are promoting it?
I think the idea is to improve the sustainability of a city by reducing people's need to travel by car, which uses energy, and to improve its livability by ensuring easy access to most (or all) of life's amenities.
That doesn't mean it should be impossible to travel beyond the 15-minute limit. Other forms of long-form transit, like trains and cars, will always have a place, but not everyone thinks that they should be required to simply live.
I think maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The 15 minute concept is that you should be able to access most things you need for day to day needs within a short walk, not that you should never travel further than 15 minutes from your home. It's that you shouldn't be required to have a car or someone who can drive you in order to access your basic needs.
It goes back to the same questions:
- Who funds this?
- Who ensures employment security?
- Would this not prevent diversity?
- How would this encourage upward mobility?
This seems like planned financial segregation. Factories began doing this in the 50’s and it turned into Gerri’s while wealthier moved away from the cities.
Just to be clear, a 15 minute city is just an area where the amenities of a city are reachable within a short walk, which is typically a fairly dense mixed use walkable neighborhood. It doesn't mean a whole city where everyone can access everything within 15 minutes, no matter how low-density the neighborhood.
It is funded the same way as everything else in the city. In fact, these areas are often way more economically productive, because you need less infrastructure to cover more people, and the areas have a lot of economic activity. It is usually the economically productive areas of a city that funds the roads and infrastructure to less economically active areas such as car dependent suburbs.
I don't really see why being able to find a workplace close to your home would damage your job security. People choose to work wherever they want, but having the option to not spend a lot of time commuting is nice.
I also don't see why it would be bad for diversity. These kinds of neighbourhoods usually have a lot of different sizes and qualities of apartments, so you get people from all different economic backgrounds living fairly close. There's nothing about 15 minute cities that prevent people from moving where they want.
And I really don't see how being able to walk to the things you need would prevent your upwards mobility. Feel free to clarify this.
I for one live in a European city. I can reach multiple grocery stores, gyms, shopping, cafes, restaurants and parks less than 15 minutes from my home. I'm a consultant, so I switch jobs often, but I usually walk or cycle less than 15 minutes for my commute. The area I live in is also way more diverse than the suburb I grew up in because there is a lot of different appartments in different price ranges, and it is an attractive area for most people regardless of background. There's also public transit close by for those that need to travel further, and there is even a nightly bus service that goes all night. These kinds of areas are also some of the most attractive areas to live in the country, judging by the demand for apartments in the area.
It didn't need special funding to become like this, it is just a matter of the invisible hand doing its job when the policy allows these kinds of neighbourhoods to be built.
However, these kinds of areas are literally illegal to build in some parts of the world (e.g. a lot of the United States), due to zoning laws.
We've wasted huge amounts of money trying to make cars not suck, but turns out they still suck. Shifting investment away from 99% cars to 80% cars will save money and improve quality of life in cities.
Considering the US had one of the largest economic booms in history once their was easy access to travel (cars, commercial aircraft), I can’t help but to put on my tinfoil hat and ask “why”? Would this not place huge limitation on access??
On a side note: apartments and close quarters were the worse thing during COVID. Now immediately following that they are promoting it?