Bonjour!✨You can support the channel on Patreon, and get to join our discord chat and bookclub: https://www.patreon.com/alicecappelleSOURCES/RESSOURCES 📚Hél...
Well, one bad thing is that existing cities would need to be re-designed. It will take resources and decades of time. If we are patient, there is nothing bad there.
A potentially bad side effect: if planners take the easiest route and make the city ultra-dense and ultra-high, we get a vulnerable city that doesn’t function if something is wrong with the infrastructure. People are, after all, known for taking easy routes (which may later prove hard for others).
Myself, I live in the countryside and don’t like top-down planning at all, so I can’t comment more. To me, the experience is typically: “can I build a road here? - no you can’t”, “can I make a thermal store? no you can’t”, I’m sure they will eventually tell me I’m producing solar energy the wrong way too… I know that things are different in cities because the threshold to disturbing others is tiny, but I don’t think about it much - it is not for me.
I live in a 200k city and atm, city officials love to talk about density, claiming it was synonymous to sustainability. So currently, every available square meter is immediately dumped in concrete 30m2/p appartment building. The whole city is literally under construction but yet, traffic is not changing and even getting worse through all the construction. It’s outrageous
IDK that it necessarily has to be that restricted, I live in a city where most things are pretty close enough to a 15 minute walk and it’s just a small city that’s largely suburban. Maybe on the outskirts of town it’s more like a 30 minute walk, but that’s still pretty reasonable.
I’m terrible at summarizing videos so I would suggest you watch this one; it’s a short but detailed examination of the concept.
But basically, there are a number of good reasons to be concerned or disinterested in the idea, because a lot has to do with how and why it’s implemented. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
The value of walkable cities is evident: having every necessary amenity within a short distance from where you live, reducing commuting and focusing on public transportation instead of cars, which also allows for people of all walks of life to interact with each other to build community in place of segregation? Sounds lovely!
The problems arise when you consider the history of urban planning. She discusses those when she talks about how moving to suburbs in America effectively set up a divide in race and class as the poor, black community was forced into less attractive land while the more middle and upper class whites could flee to the suburbs. Critics of 15 minute cities would argue that this would inevitably happen, and there is certainly precedent in America for separate and unequal.
She also talks about how France has been heavy handed about assimilation into the culture that can be damaging to immigrants, and how more idealized notions of planned city development depend upon cultures mixing and engaging in conversation, not assimilation, and there’s something to be said about a government’s ability to make meaningful change without causing harm.
An issue that she didn’t bring up is how would those with disabilities live? If cities are designed to be walkable by reducing car access, how is someone who needs a car able yo get around?
I think the overall idea of severely limiting our dependence upon cars and a focus on developing local communities in an increasingly splintered era is an inherent good, but there definitely are valid concerns and criticisms to be had about the concept; it’s not just conspiracy theorists.
Isn’t the argument that people with disabilities are better off with accessible public transit over needing an expensive car, possibly with expensive modifications? Not all people with disabilities can even drive, and installing things like wheelchair lifts or ramps on a personal vehicle can get hella expensive.
It comes down to the “last mile” problem: someone who can’t make it very far isn’t going to be helped much by public transportation if it only get them close to where they need to go instead of right at the doorstep.
That, and public transportation involves… dealing with the public. For the agoraphobe, the autistic who is overstimulated, and the person dealing with PTSD from physical/sexual assault, being crowded into a train with a bunch of people would be hell. There always have to be alternatives because no one system fits all.
Nobody wants to ban cars completely. Services have to access the houses too after all. But the idea is that driving should not be the default. Maybe you can only drive at walking speeds, or you have to yield to all other people. So it is not reasonable to drive if you don’t strictly have to.
And yes, most disabled people are better off with accessible (actually accessible, without the need of other people) public transport.
Well, the 15min radius should not contain your whole life. And it should be equally easy and accessible to go further (e.g. other parts of town). This should be done by encouraging biking, public transport etc. Even more, they are not fixed perimeters, so there’s a lot of overlap between different peoples “15-min-radii”. Of course it comes down to implementation, but there’s definitively more to gain then to loose.
Oh sure, and I don’t disagree that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It’s more that the people who don’t trust governmental bodies to plan such carefully crafted places really do have a point, that theory and practice are entirely different beasts, and being wary or against the idea isn’t just a failure to understand how they’d work or some bonkers conspiracy.
Yeah I agree that the idea alone does not lead to good results. Im the end, a lot of gated communities kind of are a 15min cities.
A good government should take this as a guide and not plan everything, but give a framework to encourage projects that work toward connecting people, places and communities.
What’s bad about convenience lol?
Well, one bad thing is that existing cities would need to be re-designed. It will take resources and decades of time. If we are patient, there is nothing bad there.
A potentially bad side effect: if planners take the easiest route and make the city ultra-dense and ultra-high, we get a vulnerable city that doesn’t function if something is wrong with the infrastructure. People are, after all, known for taking easy routes (which may later prove hard for others).
Myself, I live in the countryside and don’t like top-down planning at all, so I can’t comment more. To me, the experience is typically: “can I build a road here? - no you can’t”, “can I make a thermal store? no you can’t”, I’m sure they will eventually tell me I’m producing solar energy the wrong way too… I know that things are different in cities because the threshold to disturbing others is tiny, but I don’t think about it much - it is not for me.
I live in a 200k city and atm, city officials love to talk about density, claiming it was synonymous to sustainability. So currently, every available square meter is immediately dumped in concrete 30m2/p appartment building. The whole city is literally under construction but yet, traffic is not changing and even getting worse through all the construction. It’s outrageous
IDK that it necessarily has to be that restricted, I live in a city where most things are pretty close enough to a 15 minute walk and it’s just a small city that’s largely suburban. Maybe on the outskirts of town it’s more like a 30 minute walk, but that’s still pretty reasonable.
The convenience of having everything near you?
Yeah, I wish I could walk to the grocery store in 15 minutes. I have to walk 20, like some sort of cave man. Just kidding, I ride my bike.
I don’t see why anybody wouldn’t want that though, it’s great.
I’m terrible at summarizing videos so I would suggest you watch this one; it’s a short but detailed examination of the concept.
But basically, there are a number of good reasons to be concerned or disinterested in the idea, because a lot has to do with how and why it’s implemented. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
The value of walkable cities is evident: having every necessary amenity within a short distance from where you live, reducing commuting and focusing on public transportation instead of cars, which also allows for people of all walks of life to interact with each other to build community in place of segregation? Sounds lovely!
The problems arise when you consider the history of urban planning. She discusses those when she talks about how moving to suburbs in America effectively set up a divide in race and class as the poor, black community was forced into less attractive land while the more middle and upper class whites could flee to the suburbs. Critics of 15 minute cities would argue that this would inevitably happen, and there is certainly precedent in America for separate and unequal.
She also talks about how France has been heavy handed about assimilation into the culture that can be damaging to immigrants, and how more idealized notions of planned city development depend upon cultures mixing and engaging in conversation, not assimilation, and there’s something to be said about a government’s ability to make meaningful change without causing harm.
An issue that she didn’t bring up is how would those with disabilities live? If cities are designed to be walkable by reducing car access, how is someone who needs a car able yo get around?
I think the overall idea of severely limiting our dependence upon cars and a focus on developing local communities in an increasingly splintered era is an inherent good, but there definitely are valid concerns and criticisms to be had about the concept; it’s not just conspiracy theorists.
Isn’t the argument that people with disabilities are better off with accessible public transit over needing an expensive car, possibly with expensive modifications? Not all people with disabilities can even drive, and installing things like wheelchair lifts or ramps on a personal vehicle can get hella expensive.
It comes down to the “last mile” problem: someone who can’t make it very far isn’t going to be helped much by public transportation if it only get them close to where they need to go instead of right at the doorstep.
That, and public transportation involves… dealing with the public. For the agoraphobe, the autistic who is overstimulated, and the person dealing with PTSD from physical/sexual assault, being crowded into a train with a bunch of people would be hell. There always have to be alternatives because no one system fits all.
Nobody wants to ban cars completely. Services have to access the houses too after all. But the idea is that driving should not be the default. Maybe you can only drive at walking speeds, or you have to yield to all other people. So it is not reasonable to drive if you don’t strictly have to.
And yes, most disabled people are better off with accessible (actually accessible, without the need of other people) public transport.
Well, the 15min radius should not contain your whole life. And it should be equally easy and accessible to go further (e.g. other parts of town). This should be done by encouraging biking, public transport etc. Even more, they are not fixed perimeters, so there’s a lot of overlap between different peoples “15-min-radii”. Of course it comes down to implementation, but there’s definitively more to gain then to loose.
Oh sure, and I don’t disagree that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. It’s more that the people who don’t trust governmental bodies to plan such carefully crafted places really do have a point, that theory and practice are entirely different beasts, and being wary or against the idea isn’t just a failure to understand how they’d work or some bonkers conspiracy.
Yeah I agree that the idea alone does not lead to good results. Im the end, a lot of gated communities kind of are a 15min cities.
A good government should take this as a guide and not plan everything, but give a framework to encourage projects that work toward connecting people, places and communities.
20min to walk the closest grocery store? Feels bad man :( Bike is the way
Shit, some people have an hour’s drive to the nearest grocery store. A 20 minute walk isn’t so bad really.
Depending on where you live, 20min is actually good. I just never lived further than 10min by foot from a grocery store
You shouldn’t even have to with good public transport focus city, there should be local transport like trams or mini bus.
My city does have bus service but I really like walking and riding my bike: It’s been years since I used it.