Good title. The video presents an argument that shows the most obvious upsides of a 15-minute city and explains the basic concept well. However, It doesn't actually provide counterarguments or answer the core question given in the title. You don't actually tell "why people are angry". From what I see there are a couple reasons. The most recent comes specifically from the authoritarianism that happened in oxford and was connected to the idea. The second older one comes from people who think anything the World Economic Forum promotes is probably evil because they distrust anything those "elites" seem to be pushing top-down. Which kind of makes sense. But, letting their paranoia get in the way of some okay ideas is bad. The third is because the car and oil lobby hates the idea so they are intentionally smearing it. Ironically, if the argument was made in the right way. Many of the policy solutions would be pretty appealing to the libertarian and not extreme parts of the right. If you look at why we currently don't have more 15 minute cities and towns a lot of it comes down to government zoning restrictions.(And a little bit of racism and corporate greed.) So if you said you wanted to remove restrictions on what kind of things can be built. Or reduce ongoing tax bills by reducing the amount the city needs to pay in loan payments. Basically the kind of arguments "strong towns" is making. Even investment in transit can be sold there if you can show how that would take much less subsidy than roads in the long run. The freedom concerns are at the core of a lot of the anger. Although, it is being stirred up from several sources. Some manipulative, others more genuine. 15 minute lockdown zones, or completely banning all personal car ownership would be oppressive. Having cities where most people don't need cars. But the people who really want them can have them or rent them on a short term basis is a good idea. That isn't the same thing as having no cars. A second area of somewhat justified concern is dislike of cities and skyscrapers. Living in an apartment isn't for everyone. And if density is too large, all housing will probably be apartments. This is seen as a threat to home ownership. And honestly, some Urbanists do seem to hate home ownership almost as much as they do cars. What many people miss is that there are many forms of living that are between what a suburb generally is and a large apartment building. Ownership can coexist with density to a degree. Density could at least be doubled or tripled and still allow a decent amount of private ownership. That would also make houses cheaper since they would need less land and could be constructed with cheaper methods per sq. ft. Row-houses and other semi-detacted houses can bring a lot of density. Town homes that stack multiple private houses vertically and sharing a lawn between 2-4 families can also make things much more affordable while still giving many of the benefits of a suburb while allowing most needs to be within 15 minutes. Things being walk-able is more like living in a small town than in a giant city in my view. One of the core ideas you don't seem to cover that Carlos Moreno mentions is that he wants to decentralize employment. I think this is a good idea that could be taken too far. It would massively cut down on commuting. But, I don't think 0 commuting is possible unless each neighborhood is a lockdown area. Or alternatively, housing was connected to a particular job and assigned to people rather than bought on a normal market. As you can't ensure that all types of jobs are near all people without a high level of control or employment based segregation. Which would probably be tyrannical or at least some form of communist. I think the ideal is to reduce commuting to a sensible degree and then make the remain communicating happen via a robust rail network. "15 minute cities" with transit has a lot of potential. Without transit, it would remove opportunities for laborers. In that case, all the things you need to buy can be walked or biked to. And then you can get to your job by train or bike.
Fantastic points, and I agree with almost all of them. I really wish I had you to bounce ideas off when I was initially writing and researching this video. However, I've certainly jotted them all down now. I hope you don't mind if I pin your comment. I think it adds to the nuance of this topic from a very level-headed point of view that viewers would be interested in reading.
@@Urbanometry Wow, thanks! Well, I would be happy to allow you to bounce ideas off me for some of your future videos. If you want I can send an email to the business email attached to your channel so you have my email so we can talk more later. If I knew it was going to be pinned I probably would have tried to edit it to be more concise. I can be a bit wordy sometimes. Although, I do enjoy editing things down too. Although, as a PS. using the point about the car industry having an incentive to smear 15 minute cities. I think personally think that is true. But, it fairly close to an Ad Hominem attack. Although, there is a bad incentive. That doesn't completely dismiss an concern they raise unless it is an outright lie. To an extent, the missing middle is generally portrayed in a different video than the one talking about 15 minute cities by urbanists. But, in my view it forms a major part of the core of addressing the actual concerns of normal people who are worried about 15 minute cities. My main philosphy to argument is to try to understand what the other person actually wants and what they really dislike. Then address those concerns. The only thing that gets tricky is how to deal with a good point against a position. I generally prefer to acknowledge but the propose something that addresses the weakness. Although, in some formats it makes sense to just focus on the strengths. As downplaying your own position can just make you seem like the position is weak.
i wonder how this works for those that want to be business owners? Doesn't seem like entrepreneurship would do well in these kind of cities. Wouldn't be enough room, esp competing with the box brand companies.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 Yes please, if you don't mind sending me an email it be great to get into contact. Overall from your original comment I think it's long, but I don't think it's wordy, as each thing you mentioned flowed well and added to the topic. If you choose to edit the comment, that's up to you. 😀
@@marlak4203 15 minute cities in general? Or those medium density developments? generally if you have a mixed use development it would add more opportunities for small retail companies since foot traffic has a massive effect on retail performance. It is part of why malls charged so much for slots. People like that experience and that is part of why people would drive so they could walk and shop. One particular idea I like is to have a mall/apartment block hybrid. You could still have some parking. But, ideally you give it one main transit access point. And then maybe some form of micro-transit like those little golf cart trains. You have 1-3 main level of the mall. But you build a little higher and have apartments stacked top. Or if you have an older mall having some trouble. You could take some of the areas that used to have big box stores that faced the outside and renovate them appartments.
Over the years i notice how the same people that complain about being stuck in traffic for decades , also want to counter every alternative solution to solve it.
It is because the alternatives are forced upon them by borderline retarded central planers in the most stupid way imaginable. The solution is not to remove cars and their infrastructure by force and central planing! This video still has that point of technocratic view as seen in 5:00 where the video gloats about removing private cars. The real solution is to remove zoning so businesses, schools and shops can organically pop up where the customers and workforce is located. That was the other thing we did not have in the old days apart from cars. ZONING!!!
The funniest thing to me about this is that neighborhoods that are like 15-minute cities are the most desirable places to live and are priced well above what most people can afford. Yet, we still don't build them. It might be useful to see who funds these groups railing against 15-minute cities.
The high price is largely a function of scarcity. Ironically, some of the opposition to 15 minutes cities is probably coming from landlords and homeowners who already have such places to live, because expanding the number of housing units available in 15 minutes cities would push down their property values.
It's most likely the Investors who wnat to own emplty buidlings hoping to profit off their rising values along with other greedy elits. The fossil fuels and materials industires are just their fall guy.
Some of these local towns or neighborhoods with amenities and needs within a 15 minute walk have movie theatres. The town next to where I live has a movie theatre next to the train station and close to some local businesses and a supermarket.
Okay, I did a little research. People initially got angry not about the concept of a 15-minute city, but about restrictions on the freedom to go anywhere. This is not about a city for pedestrians, but 15-minute zones that you cannot leave without special permission. So amazing concept of walkable city was confused with lockdown zones.
Alas, some people have an over active fantasy. There are no such zones. And creating them would be a disaster. The 15 minute city is a place where you can walk from your home, to the store, in under 15 minutes.
@@danbeaulieu2130 I would recommend you look up Oxford Council's official statements on "traffic filters" (they have a PR-friendly explanation on their official website). They are planning to mail fines to people who don't have permission to pass through the "filter." They are very generously "allowing" residents to "apply for a permit" to pass through the filters up to 100 days per year without being fined. They are literally planning to use fines to penalize people from driving places and, at most, will allow exceptions for 1/3 of a year. How is that not a lock-down zone of some kind? The Oxford issue is what has all of the "conspiracy theorists" up in arms because it is something being imposed from the top-down without any apparent effort to encourage things to happen organically. I have no objections to the original concept of a 15 minute city (being a walk-able city with all needed amenities close by). In fact, I think it's how cities SHOULD be built. I do have a problem with government tyranny. Some bureaucrat being able to A) arbitrarily decide whether or not I have a "legitimate" reason to enter a different part of my own city and B) actively impose penalties for this definitely sounds like tyranny to me.
@@danbeaulieu2130 Theres even video footage of drivers removing the bollards they installed between zones and filling the post holes with cement or just driving over them since they were plastic, the concept is good in theory, but there is a reason alot of small local shops shut doors and went out of business, less then 10years ago the village i live in had its own butcher and 2 small general stores each doing there best not step on each other toes by not selling the same stuff, the owner retired the store closed, the butchers not sure why they shut up possibly the same reason or it just wasn't profitable. Heck alot of areas in cities in america even have shops pulling out of some areas due to high crime, how are your 15minute cities ment to cope with that?
@@danbeaulieu2130 I was responding to: "Alas, some people have an over active fantasy. There are no such zones. And creating them would be a disaster." I then pointed to a place that is legitimately trying to create "such zones" and the reply I got sounded like a dismissal of Oxford "being authoritarian." (Incidentally, I do agree with you, creating such zones would be a disaster.) You and I both know that what Oxford is doing and actual 15 minute city planning are not remotely the same thing. The problem is that the news about Oxford's insane interpretation of it is the first that most people have ever heard about the idea (and for some reason, they don't like it). Rightly or wrongly, the two are now linked in the public consciousness and we can't pretend otherwise just because we don't like it. Pretty much all of the clips in the introduction of this video were people responding to Oxford's interpretation of 15 minute cities rather than the concept in and of itself but they are being derided as conspiracy theorists instead of people with legitimate criticisms.
My local doctors was 5 min walk. They have just centralised services and moved. Its now a 30 min drive away or 45 min bus ride on a bus that runs every hour on the hour. Just what I would need when Im feeling unwell.
UK person here, this video is excellent. I'd say nearly every city here in the UK is a 15 minute city, but that's based on pure history, so although we do drive, we opt to walk a lot to stores etc, just out of convience, amazing video
Just a shame that some small businesses are struggling, and some of the smaller versions of supermarkets price gouge . But I'm so glad I can pop to the chemist, grab some stuff for dinner and maybe have a coffee or a pint if I want to without needing to drive
@@MarkonaBike I certainly think there should be some governing rules about corporations (like tesco) just being able to slap 1000 stores in a 5 mile radius, but I agree, just being able to take a 10minute walk and being able to get anything I need, is just amazing
Create the world you want. Stand together, withhold your taxes. Establish new councils and leadership..do this using real people, who really live among you, and so genuinely love and understand the community and it's local nuances and needs. Overwrite the broken systems that surely exist only because of the mass consent continues to support them, despite the hearts crying out for change. British variety is being trashed. Habits local traditions and history eradicated. Everyone is moving towards a single blob like, spineless entity. We will look back and rue out missed chances to make our lives better. Build back better, yes by removing the worthless and treasonous poachers we currently call governments and councils. Waste of time to vote Labour or Tory when we know both are failing and driving us in directions that don't favour us
Auto manufacturers have done one hell of a job lobbying and promoting car-centric values into not just American consciousness that it's a "freedom" to (be required) to own a car but also changing actual laws to make sure their product survives. Wouldn't need so many cars if you weren't required to have one to commute from work to home. Wouldn't need a car if there was a consistent train/tram/bus route. Not to mention taking the train frees your time for a nap, meditation, school work, or whatever else you want to do instead of being focused on that moron from X state here trying to side swipe you during rush hour.
@@scopie49 Its not some conspiracy the only reason were talking about this now is that 30 years ago less people lived in cities so traffic wasn't as bad as it is now.
I've followed a couple urban planning channels for a year or so and only just found out about 15 minute cities from a coworker. He was avidly against them because of the fear of not being able to leave your "15 minute zone" and then being afraid he'd be taxed for driving and wanting to live further away. Conspiracy carbrains are such an odd group.
@@scopie49 reminds me of how people against feminism describe problems with society that are caused by existing structures that feminism is trying to change. It is has turned into politics instead of the actual substance of the matter
@@scopie49 dont think it is "carbrains" but clickbait "media" trying to rile up a "conservative" GOVERNMENT-IS-BAD group even ELECTRIC cars are getting "painted" with "take away our freedom" by low range and SLOW charging there is a group taking "advantage" to drive a narrative and "activate" a demographic against ANY change and ANY government
The irony if of nimbys is incomprehensibly mindblowing. It's so ironic that one of them talked about "freedom of choice," yet being forced to own a car just to have the ability to participate in society is not only the epitome of tyrannical restriction of movement, but also a mandatory tax forced upon everyone. True freedom is being able to choose how you get around. That's a human right.
The freedom to walk, bike, take the bus/tram, or drive a car vs. being forced to buy a car from one of a handful of mega-corporations to participate in life. Gee, wonder which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory 🤔
@@onetwothreeabc Because they can't afford a car? Not having a car is a permanent barrier to getting a job if you aren't in one of America's few walkable areas.
@123abc When I was at the town hall in my city recently, a homeless man was begging the counter for free bus tickets so he could get across town to a job interview. The place he needed to go was over an hour away, and while he walked everywhere, he couldn't walk there in time. He was very much at a disadvantage without having a car, as it was barely a 10-minute drive on the highway. I'm sure he could have looked for a job closer if the option was there, but the way my city is zoned, all of the commercial buildings are huddled in one area far away from the town hall. Luckily my city gives free bus tickets to anyone experiencing a similar situation, and he was hopefully able to make it on time. This is what it means to be “forced to own a car,” without a car, he is at an extreme disadvantage while trying to access the same essential services someone who owns a car doesn't struggle to access at all.
There is some degree of irony in calling 15-minute cities tyrannical. Many of our cities today are designed according to strict zoning regulations which directly restrict, among other things, where people can live and where businesses can open.
I think there is an irony. Although, I think there is a nugget of truth that has to be addressed. Overall, 15-minute cities have the potential to bring more freedom. But, there is the risk of them being implemented in a tyrannical way. Simply banning single family zoning would result in things getting better through actions of the market. Although, not everywhere would get better. And some people's houses would become more valuable and those further away would lose value.
What happens if there are no such restrictions? It ends up with residents complaining about noise from industry, trucks delivering things in the middle of the night, music being played loudly, noise from large numbers of people and so on. The solution to which was to keep them separate.
@@shaun5552 And making all zoning single-use is colossally expensive, colossally inefficient, colossally damaging, and imposes a colossal socioeconomic toll on society.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 WTF, markets and capitalism don't give a single shit about zoning, urbanism, and nice living environments. It's just maximum profits, and more taxes for the city.
@@Simboiss I agree it doesn't care directly either way. However, many of the principles behind making a nice environment are more profitable if there aren't too much subsidies distorting things. Markets currently do making nice living environments. But most of them are not that affordable. So they aren't super accessible. Roads are collectively funded and subsidized. If you are looking at a priority on taxes. Walkable main streets and town centers bring in much more tax revenue for the amount of land used than strip malls. Parking also doesn't directly bring in tax money. Unless it is paid parking. But even that doesn't bring in as much. Markets won't bring utopia, and they can allow shady people to benefit or hurt people, but they can go things sometimes. Zoning isn't a capitalist thing anyways. That is a government thing. To an extent "capitalism" benefits from current zoning law in the sense that big oil and car companies benefit. But they aren't the only type of big company. To give a mixed example, Houston has a much wider area of medium density and less skyscrapers since they have pretty lax zoning. Although, they also have very very heavy highway investment and meh transit so despite a little bit higher density the typical walk-ability is meh. You do see more neighborhood businesses though so non-commuting walkability is a bit better. We do still see quite a lot of large lawns though and full on suburbs where the land is cheaper though. Which shows that if zoning is the only thing that is changed it isn't going to magically fix everything. But, that will make some elements better. I don't want to completely abolish zoning though. I just think that at medium low density commercial and residential zoning should be mostly mixable.(Putting a shop in your front lawn, or converting the first story of a multi-story house into a bar/shop, etc.) And at higher density they should be fully mixable.(Appartments with shops on the ground level stuff.) Stuff that cause extreme amounts of noise like nightclubs and stuff should be reserved for the edges of those zones though. Large parking lots should also be prohibited there since they create a lot of light pollution to make safe at night. And any industry that makes noise or has a pollution risk should be in separate industrial areas.
I don't understand the wishy-washy argument that a 15 minute city planning program "limits choices". What choices do people in the suburbs and bedroom communities currently have? You have to get in a car to drive at least 10 minutes to the nearest box store or supermarket strip mall, which are all chain franchises. The restaurants and cafes are not locally owned. You may have a gym membership, but the company that provides it is on the other side of the city from where you live or work. Entertainment options are limited to maybe a single movie theatre, but there's no culture or identity to these sprawling neighborhoods with single family dwellings on them. I currently live in a downtown urban setting. From my home I can walk to the grocery store and pharmacy. There's parkland two blocks from my house. There's public and high schools within 15 minutes walking distance. My gym is 30 minutes away walking, or I can take a bus to get there in 10. There's local bars, coffee shops, restaurants, and bakeries steps from my front door. The main road has a designated bicycle lane, and buses come along the road every 5-15 minutes. There's even a sports complex where I can go watch live games at the stadium, two cinemas, and a music hall for live concerts. Work is an hour commute for me, but my office has allowed for a hybrid work environment, so I can rest easier having days where I can sit at my dining room table to get tasks done and then go out for a walk. Life is good, and because I don't have to go far for the things I need or want, I don't currently own a car. When I do need to travel distances, I can bus, take the train, or rent a vehicle. It has strengthened my connection to the community in ways that I know other people do not comprehend or get to enjoy. When I lived out in the suburbs, I only knew my neighbors on one side, and no one else. It was isolating and lonely. Where I live now, I can greet people I see on my daily walks, I know the shop owners, I have met my neighbors from even a few blocks down. I feel happy being more sociable, and instead of coming home in the evenings, beat down, tired, and cranky, I am feeling energized and ready for other activities that don't involve doing chores around the house, or simply vegging out in front of the TV until bedtime. THAT'S what real choice looks like, and it bothers me that detractors of the 15 Minute City don't see how that makes me more free.
@@alanrobertson9790 but this is the main crux of the issue when it comes to city planning. They're building further afield from the city center without supplying needed infrastructure, mass transit, school options, daycares, and other necessities, which is just developing land for the sake of development. I worked in tract home building for a few years, and it was entirely car centric design - every home had two car garages, every block was single family dwelling units, no corner stores or shops, or central athletics/community centers for people to congregate at. People who live there have no choice BUT to drive, which means it's not really a choice, but an imposition. Every game day, my neighborhood is flooded with street parked cars from people attending the local stadium who don't want to pay for parking on site. They take the local shuttle from a few blocks up so they don't have to walk. Wouldn't it make more sense to have reliable transit near the places these people lived so they can ditch the car at home and not have to worry about finding parking? Why not embrace systems that are scaled to human needs instead of basing it around parking metrics and travel times?
@@BrokeredHeart Mass transport systems only become feasible in a city of a few million. The reason cars are popular is that it takes you where you want to go. For me in outer London it was 25 mins walk to nearest Tube station, 30 min tube trip followed by 10 min walk. In the evening I rarely got a seat. Sometimes the trains were cancelled/blocked/strikes. Sometimes it poured with rain and the pavements were icy. By car same trip would have been 30 min mornings and 50 min evenings, in better comfort. Anecdotal but common. For most journeys cars are simply much more efficient, centre of London excepted. The same car can drive you to north of Scotland with luggage. That is why cars are popular and work for most people and why even free public transport would not compete. The reason why ideological politicians want to impose restrictions is because cars work. Otherwise they wouldn't have to and it wouldn't be an issue.
@@BrokeredHeart PS As a further comment your text is where you want to be, not where we are now, and to get there you want to wreck what currently works. Don't let the perfect wreck the good. People need to live in the meantime and the enforced changes make life worse, not better. Ref Oxford and London ULEZ.
@@alanrobertson9790 but cars don’t work. Unless by work you mean great cogestion, unwalkable neighbourhoods, and debt. Car dependents cities don’t provide choice. They force everyone into a car. An expensive and dangerous machine that about half the people don’t want to use. You say give people choice but leaving things as is does the opposite. And transit works just fine in small cities, as long as they aren’t built car size but are built human size. A shopping centre shouldn’t require three bus stops because the parking lot is so big it takes three blocks.
I grew up in a very Urban city across from Manhattan in New Jersey and we didn't own a car for the first 10 years of my life. Our Schools, Grocery stores, shops, playgrounds & family all were within walking distance. If we needed to go further we just took Public transportation. It wasn't until we moved to Florida that we HAD to get a Car just to make everyday tasks achievable. To me that was true Freedom not having to be a slave to a automobile.
Would you believe me if I told you that Florida has way more Urban Planning than NYC does? More than Tokyo does, more than many beautiful small towns across the world.
@@RazgrizWing Well that's what I mean. This is what happens when you start to pack densely into big megalopolises like NYC and NJ. You get more people looking for houses which means smaller houses go for much more money, you don't get a nice bedroom or even in unit laundry or even a view for close to $4000 in rent a month, crime goes up and so does filth and homeless people and not to mention all the policies that decriminalise a lot of crimes thus empowering many criminals to do more and increasing taxes on people to no end. You get public transport and don't need cars but then parking prices go through the moon because space is at a premium and your public transport continues to decay further and further to where women and children feel unsafe riding on it but hey at least you can walk to your local laundromat right and don't need a car? Then once you realise that same city you praised is beyond saving and way too expensive you jump ship for a state that is more free, has no income tax, has a much better standard of living and far less crime and homeless people and you then once again begin to vote in the same policies that seek to transform the place you ran to into the same hellhole you initially ran from because hey at least we could walk everywhere there and didn't need to drive around am I right? It's a joke that people don't realise the irony here.
Car enthusiasts should definitely support the idea of reducing car dependency, better public transit, and creating safer streets for the people by getting rid of motor vehicles. I mean *Cycling And Rollerblading enthusiasts.
I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This is a 15-minute city. For me a 15-minute city means freedom. The best example that I can give is regarding the freedom it gave to my daughters. When my daughters were young we transported them around in our box bike. They could see where they were going, they could hear the city, they could ask about what they were seeing. Later on they cycled with us through the city learning them how to interact in traffic. Once they got a little older they went on their own to school and sports along known routes. And once they got around puberty they started to get around on their own just sending us a message where they were going. But still living in a society where a kid needs to be transported around by the soccor mom untill their 16th is the utopia of freedom? No way.
My Mom, when she visited me, loved that a store a few hundred meters away had all the basic groceries needed for dinner, despite being tiny, smaller than most convenience stores. Meats, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables, more. One could simply shop for a single night's dinner if desired. This was in a distinctly *suburban* part of a UK city. I think that urbanists would do well to present an overall vision that people could see themselves in, like the above, rather than endless images of foreign-looking cities. My Mom's girlhood home in a 50,000 person American city was in a walkable neighborhood with well kept sidewalks separated from quiet streets, across the street from a well kept park, a shop at the corner, and all the same way 75 years later when I visited. And it was and is affordable. Harken to that, not some alien seeming land far away. Maybe many Americans came from those lands, but the generations born in America never saw that. It's not a hard sell when you relate it to positive experiences from the past, and express it as a positive vision rather than anti car. Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns points out that highways could be faster if one put the city-edge businesses on access roads, so the highway could be 65 miles an hour with fewer intersections. Others point out that the Netherlands typically ranks top in the Driver Satisfaction Index produced by Waze (the driving app), despite also being very walkable, bikeable, good transit. It's not either or, it's the best of each. America is a well off country; the vision should be the best of the best, accessible again to the masses, not just the few.
I completely agree. With this video, I tried my best to show how drivers could benefit from a 15-minute city, as I own a car and can't see myself living without it. Especially as many of my own family members live far out in rural areas inaccessible without a car, however, I can see that my focus on Paris and especially ancient cities may not fit so well with explaining the benefits to people here in the West. Thank you for your insight! I'll certainly take this into account when making my next video.
9:47 That same maddening self-fulfilling prophesy when flipped in reverse is the equally-maddening "in order to get your first car, you need a car, to get the car."
If your 15 minute city works as intended, then you should be able to own a car or take public transportation, yet you wouldn’t need to use either for everyday life
I say: Keep all parking lots on the outskirts of town. One should be able to walk to them or take a quick bus trip. But they would not be inside the city, so all streets would be walking or bikable, there could be porches instead of driveways, and so forth. And then, we could really enforce laws that keep bikes, scooters, skate boards and so forth off the sidewalks, because the streets would be safe for them, making the sidewalks safe for pedestrians.
@@mr.b3168 What do you mean stacking, people always lived in communities ? When you go to a hotel room do you feel bad and in a box ? Living in a big and vibrant city is a luxury, the streets and parks are your garden, so yeah it is healthy for the mind and for the body (walking bicycling) and in the USA you don’t find that feeling (apart from NYC) it’s just industrial extended countrysides
@@mr.b3168 If we're going to live in urban areas, this is the way to build them . If you'd rather live a rural lifestyle away from "community" that's fine, but suburban sprawl is horrible for us and the worst of both worlds.
@@mr.b3168 Have you even watch the video ? Yeah suburban american way of life is not healthy, it is an aspect of newborn countries. Exactly as you said.
I bet you should have addressed more concerns about why everyone was so angry. This include things like poor timing (people had lockdowns still fresh in their minds) and poor execution (it's better to use carrot than a stick to achieve walkability. Do what Utrecht does, not what Oxford does).
Thanks for your feedback! You make some solid points about the timing and approach to 15-minute cities. I'll be sure to revisit this topic and dig into those concerns in future content. Appreciate your thoughtful input.
People lost trust in public institutions not being one step away from controlling you. The Car outside of rush hour in the US means you can go anywhere now. Even during Covid lockdowns you could just move to a place with your car that didn’t give a fuck. 15 minute city means that GTFO ability is gone and doesn’t help it proposed as a way to lock in people instead of a way to help people(unlike this video)
@@EmpReb I can see why people would fear that. However, a car does not give you any more freedom from a tyrannical government than public transit or cycling would. If cities really wanted to force us into our homes, they could just put up barriers and block the roads. Same effect as forcing people into their homes by stopping public transit or whatever other actions people fear they would do. If public institutions really are one step away from controlling us, then having a car doesn’t grant us any more protection from that anyway.
100%. That's what i saw in the news as to why so many people are against this. That is my thing with this whole urban planning schtick so many have been pushing RIGHT as we were dealing with Covid (living close together. Get out of a car and ride transit with others, etc) I mean...um...why would you think promoting togetherness with strangers would go over great when we are all running away from each other and also being TOLD by governments to be apart?
Talking about carrots and sticks reminds me of the Nudge Unit (search for "SPI-B apology") and brings some unpleasant memories. How about just offering people options?
I've asked a number of people why they were opposed to the 15-minute city concept. I also listened. Here's what I learned: 1) They are NOT opposed to walkable neighborhoods. 2) They are (mostly) NOT anti-transit. 3) They feel they've been betrayed by politicians regarding these types of grand plans on numerous occasions -- and who in the world hasn't? 4) They ARE opposed to sweeping mandates and financial penalties. 5) They ARE turned completely off by the elitist, condescending, authoritarian attitudes exhibited by MANY of those who promote the concept. You see it on some of the urbanist channels here on YT, but this video certainly does a better job of explaining it in a non-condescending manner than most! 6) They don't necessarily believe that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, but they cannot help but have noticed that many of the predictions made in the 90s simply did not come to pass, blatant fear-mongering has been leveraged into personal fortunes, world leaders who harp on about rising sea levels keep buying oceanfront mansions and flying around the globe in private jets while urging the middle class to make meaningful sacrifices, and a certain type of political parasite insists that they can "change the weather" if all of you plebs just surrender more of your money to them. It's not helping the urbanist cause that many of these people are the same ones promoting the 15-minute city concept. 7) They're more worried about out-of-control taxation and government spending, skyrocketing crime rates, runaway inflation, and the devaluation of their savings. They're more concerned about being forced to eat pet food in their retirement than if they can walk to the grocery store to buy it. TLDR: It isn't the concept itself that turns off some people. It's the way it's being presented and those who are presenting it!
There's still an awful lot of ignorance embedded in those "concerns". Not the innocent sort like "I'd never heard of that before" but more like "That guy is criticizing suburbs, what an arrogant asshole!" People like that are damaged, and it's incredibly frustrating to try to have rational conversations with them.
@@LoveLearnShareGrow Congratulations! You just irrefutably proved my point #5. You definitely win people over to your side by calling them ignorant, damaged, and irrational. That's certainly what loving, learning, sharing, and growing is all about. Thanks for participating in the conversation!
@@alexharris2495 I assumed it was intentionally ironic and sarcastic to illustrate the point. Although, even in the most uncharitable interpretation I can think of he only implied WildNights was unloving, uncaring, and elitist. Not ignorant though.
@@colormedubious4747 Indeed, anybody who knows what I'm talking about will take your response as proof of our views as well. You did not share the opinions of others, you shared your own ignorance couched in an opinion-poll style. You do not seek to learn, you seek to take offense and shut down the conversation. I have spent many years carefully crafting the most compassionate and thoughtful ways to help educate people on topics such as this, but I've found it to ultimately be a colossal waste. The mere suggestion that you might have something to learn would be taken as a great offense. Instead, I now test the waters as above, and anybody who is more interested in learning than being offended will ask questions. I am usually quite happy to expand on anything I've said, with no insults for anybody participating in good faith, which you were not.
In The Netherlands and probably in most European cities we are literally living this way for years. By the way i´m glad that you´re able to explain this 15 minute city concept in a more comprehensive way for people to understand what it actually really is, compared to crazy conservative conspiracy theorists that complain about everything they themselves don´t understand. But i guess that 15 minute city concept has to be carefully induced into the public conscious so that it becomes accepted overtime.
I visited Den Haag last spring (and am returning tomorrow) and was blown away by how the city is designed. After living my entire life in American cities where a car is required to do everything, it was really eye-opening to see how pleasant a city can be when you design it properly.
@@jeffreybruner5462 I find Den Haag not my convenient place to live but i can see what you mean. I myself live in Dijk en Waard (Heerhugowaard) a small municipality where this 15 minute concept is common thing.. th-cam.com/video/a-pDqb933dQ/w-d-xo.html
This is the case in all the places where I have lived (Cuijk, Nuenen and Helmond) always at minimum 2 streets away from a grocery store, other shops and multiple schools and also decent public transportation.
... most adults even in Netherlands have cars, despite what media says.. Wikipedia cars per person, 550/1000 so adjusting for 20% under 18 that's 750/1000. Even Japan is 500.... Nonpoor people dont wanna walk and skip in ice and rain or even be cold... But govt don't care what people want, they'll ban.. Stalin would be proud, elected leaders tellling people they can't have free movement...
I live in east Oxford which was the centre of these protests. The irony is that it is already a 15 minute city. Every kind of shop, space, healthcare, leisure, etc. is within a 15 minute cycle.
@@cebruthius it's about congestion. In the 1950s Oxford used to knock down large quantities of housing to make way for roads. This became unpopular for obvious reasons. As a result Oxford has too many cars for it's few main roads. The filters in Oxford will balance this issue.. There was a choice of using immovable blocks or filters. Filters seemed fairer to motorists which later complained about the surveillance :-)
@@cebruthius cars are a restriction, hence the need to restrict them. Don't need a car to buy a months worth of groceries everyday. Don't need a car to walk a mile. The need to provide parking for a car that drives a mile could be better spent. Zone charging only exists because people unnecessarily congest streets.
I speak Russian and it's mind-blowing how similar Russians and Americans are. Both have to turn EVERYTHING into conspiracy. If you're a politician, you just need to frame any issue in terms of conspiracy and then you get a flock of obedient sheeps who believe that they're critical thinkers.
I never thought I would find myself in the "Reducing urban sprawl, soul-killng commutes, the destruction of nature and pollution is a conspiracy theory" timeline and yet here we are.
how did we go from distrusting large authorities to distrusting every single government authority? i consider myself a conservative, but the united states has completely lost any semblence of a conservative party. i hate it.
I've encountered a common thread online while researching 15-minute cities that strongly points the finger at car and oil companies for fueling the hatred of any idea that reduces our need for cars. But I need to do more research on this before I’m confident enough to make a video about it. I think this is one of the main reasons we get such hysteria in North America. Half of it is a public outcry, fueled by the other half, which is private interest groups.
@@Urbanometry In my view each of the two major parties in America is funded by a different type of capitalist. The republicans are influenced by the manufacturing and oil companies. While the bankers and finance people control what gets pushed by the democrats. But, fake grassroots groups is a common tactic of corporate interests on both sides. A lot of "Americans for X" Where X is a nice sounding thing against a really niche position are really common. most of those are fronts for allowing corporate interests to directly stall political or economic moves they dislike. There are a couple groups like that which sue whenever someone tries to build affordable housing in some states. Or open new transit lines or stations. Most real grassroots movements actually suggest a solution, having a book at the center of it, or care about multiple closely related issues and have a road map rather than just sueing/campaigning/lobbying about a single tiny thing.
@@Urbanometry You can put me into the "distrust" category. Yet I am a recumbent cyclist who rides hundreds of kms every month. Trains come second. I only own an old car basically as a hobby. So big oil or big car are non-factors for me.
@Conservitarian 17 And yet pedestrian infrastructure is usually an afterthought in most cities. With parking minimums, tiny sidewalks that end randomly, massive cars zooming past you as you walk down a vast stroad and so on. Not to mention the constant hate for separated bike lanes. But somehow, you ignore all that and think, “Oh no! Less space for my car. Must be a top-down authoritarian control scheme.” People are pushing their governments to make cities more accessible, not the other way around. To paint it any other way is willful ignorance at best.
It wasn't until talking to someone who was against 15 minute cities that I realised they think it's about getting rid of cars as opposed to just decreasing the need for a car.
@@rexx9496what rubbish is that? All you folk who abuse folk who are against it have no arguments for it so you just make stuff up, you should be embarrassed. There are genuine arguments against it but you are not smart enough to argue back so you insult them.
Decreasing the need for a car, how? I've genuinely not seen one argument put forward that would reduce the need for a car Having a 15 minute city won't make the weather better, won't give me more time, won't make my shopping lighter, literally makes everything harder for me and more costly. I've genuinely yet to hear a valid argument for it, closer shops isn't a reason enough to destroy so many lives and risk so many people safety.
I think a lot of resistance also comes from people in suburbs with access to less choice and fewer amenities, who are used to driving to the city for greater access. 15 minute city plans often start in larger cities, reducing access to those amenities for suburbanites, as such plans favour the actual city residents. City residents and businesses do get a significant boon where car access is reduced, despite claims that reduced car access would drive people away. In the end, the number of customers brought in with car access is so insignificant that they are completely overshadowed by the number of people who congregate in walkable neighborhoods. When suburbs want to implement 15 minute city measures, residents often cite 3 fears as they protest against them: reduced home value with the introduction of more housing units in their area, increased car traffic in residential neighborhoods with increased density and mixed use, and increased noise with mixed use. In reality, 15 minute neighborhoods are more desirable, bringing UP the value of the land. Amenities in their area are meant to be walked or biked to, meaning that their neighborhoods are not going to see an increase in car traffic from the outside. They will even see a decrease in local car traffic. Finally, mixed commercial use does not mean lots of noise from raucous bar goers in the middle of the night, as such amenities are generally only allowed in commercial areas. Local amenities are quiet and don't operate late anyway.
They should just build large multi-storie park and ride areas so the suburbanites can drive their cars there, get off and walk to a nearby subway train or bus stop or just walk around the area and when they are done, just go back to the park and ride, get back in their cars and drive back home!
In my particular metro area, I have found that a lot of suburbanites have actually started liking a lot of those sorts of ideas locally but dislike it when bigger commuting centers go for it. Although, generally they prefer to do it in an upscale way that is kind of gentrified though. Which is sort of sad. At least it is a partial implementation though I think it is a side effect of having multiple city hubs though. It effectively has 4-5 major hubs instead of just one. And each big hub has good rail lines between them. So any suburb on the rail line is naturally becoming denser and a better place to live to a degree.
2:09 as someone who grew up in a military family, if moving is really an issue to you then just get over yourself. I have 0 sympathy for people who complain about moving.
The main talking point of the 15-minute-city conspiracy theory seems to be that it's all just a plot to keep people in their homes, and, speaking as someone who grew up in a very rural area, not near a city or town of any kind, I can only laugh at that. The only way I was able to do anything or have a life of any kind outside of school was if my parents were gracious enough to drive me to places, and that only ever happened when they felt like it, which of course was never. You want to talk about being isolated and never being able to leave your home? I lived it. For 18 years, I lived it. You don't keep people boxed in by bringing their workplaces and social spaces and amenities closer to them; you do it by making them far apart and making the people all car-dependent. That's how you get people to never leave their homes, at the very least, that's how you get their kids to never leave.
You have backwards logic. If places of goods that you need are far away. You are compelled to travel to that place to get them but if things are right near you are not compelled to travel. This would be fine if it was just bringing necessities closer to people but the restrictions that are planned and mass surveillance is concerning. You should read 1984 to get a feel of what's going on.
@@asandax6 lmao completely missing the point. Cagers are so infected by carbrain insanity they assume that having a car is as natural as breathing when it's not.
The concept of the self-sustained, 15 minute city was part of Walt Disney's original vision of EPCOT. Everything - whether it was work, play, shopping or other amenities - was either walking distance or a People Mover away. Cars & trucks would still be able to go in & out of the city, just underneath. Never on the same level as pedestrians & people movers.
The problem with the original EPCOT plan was that you wouldn't really own anything but the clothes on your back and the sheets on your bed. Disney would own all the buildings and the units within them. You'd rent your home and have the appliances, furniture, and amenities that their corporate sponsors provided to you, because you'd basically be a mere cog in a gigantic consumer testing machine. It's funny how people always forget to mention that part of Walt's vision!
@@colormedubious4747 Yeah, I am not really Disney fan either. Having everything moving to renting only is a concern I have. However, if increasing density is paired with deregulation. It should naturally provide more opportunities for ownership not less. It is only when people are coerced that the danger is really severe.
Modern people are slowly losing their social skills. Besides their very small and closes social circles it’s much easier for modern people to insult or criticize other people (online or at the street) than getting to know other people and have a good relationship with them.
The 'confusion' around 15 minute cities is intentional. For something posing as a news source to misinterpret a fairly simple concept so drastically just doesn't happen by accident. The clips at the start of the video are intentionally lying and whipping up outrage to promote an agenda, generally the continued uninterrupted sale of cars and fuel.
I live in a 3,000 population town that's a mile wide Takes me 12 minutes to get to Walmart. Leave my house and get by in 30 minutes, that's half the time that most people I know that DRIVE.
Thank God , I live 15 miles from a town of 15.000 . I have cattle, chickens , greenhouse , fish pond , on 16 acres ,with no government telling me how they want me to live.
What about when we all got locked down during Covid19, and we were only allowed to travel 5 kilometres from your residence, and got fined if you left your residence more than once a week ? ( I'm Australian)
It was the same in Germany for me. Just wait for climate lockdowns, and we'll be in the same boat. I like in my city that I have the option to walk everywhere with ease or to take public transit. But lockdowns really made me contemplate buying a car.
You've made a false equivalence. They didn't need a 15-minute city to lock you down, that was done for a pandemic. We can argue over the necessity and ethics over that and you would have a number of decent points. But this is just about providing us with a shorter commute and a more vibrant community. We are already controlled by urban planning (or lackthereof) by property developers who have no interest in creating functional amenities, interesting neighbourhoods or accessibility for those who do not or cannot drive a car. It's currently all about the profit motive. Looking to countries like Sweden which already implement 15 cities in their urban design - and you will note, never locked down during the pandemic - have far more pleasant urban environments where people who want a car can have one, but most choose not because its cheaper, healthier and more accessible to use their reliable, clean and frequent public transport options, bike lanes or just walk. Life improves when you're not stuck in your car getting from A to B all the time. Imagine a city without choking traffic, paying through your teeth for hideous car parking which destroys the soul of urban environments, and having a leisurely stroll instead multiple times a day.
Remember that a "15 minute city" is only such of it applies to everyone. If you think that you live in a 15-minute neighborhood, but the baristas and janitors have to travel 30 minutes to get to work, then you live in a theme park.
Great analysis! It is unfortunate how quickly this became a conspiracy. I live in a walkable community. I DRIVE 10 minutes to work and when I come back I have the ability to walk/bike to the park, go to city hall events and finish the night at a pub, being able to be more sociable than when I lived in a suburb.
Why do you drive 10 minutes to work? In my 40's I went from bicycle commuting to driving 20 minutes to work. I started gaining weight. After a few years of that, I went back to bicycle commuting. It takes me 30-35 minutes to bicycle commute, so for an extra 25 minutes a day commuting, I get over an hour of exercise. The added weight is gone, and I'm not polluting the air with large amounts of CO2 and tire dust.
@@blubaughmr unfortunately because while I live in a walkable area, my office is on the other side of the freeway. I live in California with strict zoning laws. The moment they start working on a bike path, I am only using my bike!
The thing is, taking this concept to the extreme, you'll get a gradual transition to a situation somewhat like in North Korea: Via the presence or absence of public transit connection to any given location, the government controls where and when anyone and everyone can go and where not, and when and where anyone can leave or not.
Or China with their Granny - Networks in every neighborhood which reports any unapproved activity to the authorities. That's how they enforced their one child policy.
Great idea for the people who actually want to live in an urban environment. I sure as heck don't. I'm thankful with my 5+ acres and house, trees around the perimeter of my land for privacy and my 10 minute walk to get the mail on the daily. I get quiet dark nights, fresh air, the sounds and smells of nature and a crisp breeze through the house without fear of neighbors peeping in.
I'll be honest. While I don't like the idea of living like that full-time, I sure do appreciate visiting my cousins who have the same type of house and land. It's relaxing and peaceful and a great way to unwind. I hope with the 15-minute city idea, I can get a piece of the nature aspect without the “inconvenience,” as I see it, of living so far away from my job and the things I need. Not everyone considers a commute inconvenient, so I put it in quotes, as my grandma used to say, different strokes for different folks. I think rural areas and small towns should be left out of the 15-minute city debate as that's a way of life that works for the people who moved there. But I think in cities, the norm of car dependency holds us back from big parks and walkable neighbourhoods and keeps us in the “concrete jungle” vibe.
The whole kerfuffle, as always, is about power. There is a significant segment of society that regards any change as a threat to their power. They believe that if thing change they will lose all of their power…and that others will have power over them. Others they don't believe should have any power at all. Including the power to live. Personally I think they should be ignored. People whose only motivation is power are the ones least equipped to possess it.
@@blitzn00dle50 Land use should be the exclusive domain of landowners, as non-landowners have a say in government, government should have no say in the use of land as non-landowners should have no say in the use of land. Let the landowners determine the best use of their land.
@@costakeith9048 if that was the case, a 15 minute city would be the natural result because it just makes more fucking sense for lack of a better term. think about this, if you want to put a grocery store somewhere, what better place than where all of your customers live? you can't do that because of zoning regulations. I'm not even going to engage with the asininity of relying on "landowners" to choose out of the goodness of their hearts to do things that make any fucking sense, it just happens that profit oriented decision making and problem solving oriented decision making both arrive at the same conclusion on 15 minute cities
Well done, please continue. I didn't realize there were so many negative ideas around this. I can understand though if the 15-min city is pitched purely as a climate change issue. I never address it as such when I talk or think about it. It's about quality of life and reviving cities and turning them back into true economic strongholds while making them a place people want to be.
@@wesleylawrence6439 Lots of European cities already meet the 15-minute city idea in many areas. So this is mostly applied to North American and other Car Centric cities. Have you ever tried getting around a typical North American City without a car? It is often exceedingly difficult. There are still plenty of suburbs and car dependent places in Europe. The idea here is that not everyone WANTS to live a car centered life. I loved being able to comfortably and safely walk to the grocery store, or restaurants when I lived in a walkable city. For the last three years in Baton Rouge, LA I have walked to the store ONCE, because there is no sidewalk, its next to a 4-lane road with cars at 45mph and there is not even a gutter bike lane. I do not want to live in a place like that for then next 50 years of my life. (moving this week as a matter of fact!)
@@seantroy3172 I do both but what happens when the temperature are to hot to walk or ride bike. I walk to work but if the weather going to get passed 112f were going to have a lot people having heat strokes. And electric scooter don't work well in the rain or sun trust me I had to get them out of rain and battery died. And I don't trust electric vehicles. Are grid can't even handle internet in people houses. And are family likes movings even l like working to work sometimes but not always it can be to hot or to cold.
Montreal's an excellent example of this. There are a huge number of walkable neighbourhoods in the city core, with the Montréal Métro helping out with longer distance travel. But as soon as you reach the suburbs, especially off of Montreal Island, it's game over. Best that it be navigated with a car.
Not true. Even in London in the UK more than half of people have to walk 10 minutes just to the nearest bus stop, to then wait for a bus and then travel slowly to a supermarket. In other cities it's most people.
What most city planning/walkable city/efficient public transit advocates don't address is that these concepts are only good ideas for a high trust - low crime society. In a society with low trust - high crime 15 minute cities are dystopian anarcho-tyranny hellscapes. This is a fundamental reason why suburbs exist in the first place, because middle class people want to get away from crime.
Partially. That isn't the only reason. Although, in many ways wanting to be away from crime is also just wanting the middle class to be segregated from poor people. Or in the olden days from people who weren't white. In many cases, they want to own a house and the cheap option is a semi-rural area and they can't afford to be closer. Since they don't want to live in an apartment and don't see another option for ownership as part of the lower middle class. Which is understandable. I don't mind living in an apartment for a little while. But there are a lot of downsides to that life. And if I was in a stable position with kids I would probably prefer not to live in one if I could afford to. Most of those issues are related to stability. As it can often be difficult to predict a rent hike. And you can often be evicted for flimsy reasons. And finding a new apartment if you do get evicted or even just want to move can often have a long wait period. In addition there are also often a lot of rules about what you can do in your home too. For me personally, those aspects would outweigh walkability long term. But my ideal place to live is either in an actual small town. Or a town-home or rowhouse that is near a rail station but not actually in the city center. Looking forward actual suburbs don't make much sense to me. And I personally don't ever expect to be in a position where I could actually buy a suburban house for a long time. I could maybe buy a semi-rural one. But "semi-rural" living is kind of garbage in my view. It is like the worst elements of country and city living combined. Living in an actual small town where I wouldn't have to commute is a lot better. The only good form of semi rural is like large town/small city living. The places where you can be a 5-10 minute drive(or maybe 15-45 minute walk) from "downtown" and get most of your needs there with an occasional monthly or seasonal trip to "The big city" And where you can get an acre or more with a house for the same kind of cost as a suburban house on the low end.(150-300k ish) Or if you don't care about having a little land you can get a house on a tiny plot in decent condition the town proper for $100k or maybe less. And then basically be in 5-15 minute walking distance of the local stuff. Although, you might need a single car for city trips. Although, you could probably be fine with car pooling with a neighbor. The only really issue with places like that is getting non-farming jobs that are decent. Education jobs are pretty good there. In some you get some industry. Although, if you can get a remote job they are great places to live. My grandparents live in a town like that and I used to spend summers living with them and they tend to be great places to live. I was able to walk everywhere. People were friendly and knew each other. The local dinner and such were great. As well as the local general store owner. The only time they get bad is if a nearby store gets a Walmart and they get flooded with family dollars. Although, they still aren't terrible then. It just means that the job market shrivels a bit except on the low end. Crime is commonly given as a reason for opposing transit and such though. Poor city areas do tend to have more crime. But, poor suburbs can often have just as much if not more in some cities.What I mean by that are suburbs that have a mix of apartments and rental homes in meh condition that are generally only 1-2 stories and only have highway access. You basically get all the disadvantages of a suburb. While also being poor, having crime, and not having opportunities to really own homes and having to rent. In many places the actual old downtown areas are gentrified because people want to live there and the poor people are forced out. Those areas are just as low crime as the suburbs. But, most middle class people can't afford to live there unless they are upper middle class or are willing to rent a luxury apartment. I find it weird you claim they are anarchy-tyrannical though. I guess that if you have a super high crime 15 minute city controlled by gangs or something it might be a lot less nice to live in. I think it would still work in medium trust societies and areas.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 From my experience middle class people have enormous empathy, not contempt, for the poor. Regardless of whether they be white or non-white. In fact middle class white people go above and beyond to try and help non-whites especially. I believe your assumption that poverty causes crime is backwards, crime and the failure of the criminal justice system to punish and deter criminals is what keeps people suffering in poverty where they would otherwise start to build wealth. There are a lot of people who are poor who are good people, very morally upstanding individuals, who deserve to live protected under a fair and balanced criminal justice system. But who unfortunately live in a society that confuses criminality as the natural consequence of poverty instead of the reverse.
@@larsjeger4346 I think you misunderstood me a little. But there is quite a bit of empathy. It does depend upon which portion of the middle class you look at though. I do think a lot of poverty is caused by crime. Particularly the war on drugs. But that is a different issue. To a certain extent I think it does but only when poverty is severe and there is little hope, If you are starving then the natural inclination is to steal. If even the poor have a certain basic standard of living then that should reduce crime by a bit. Although, a certain amount is always inevitable. The rich and middle class commit plenty of crimes as well. They are generally different crimes though. But, that there is even a societal connection between poverty and crime has the potential to gum up some elements. Even if all poverty was caused by crime and no poverty caused crime. I think your post was an important reminder and appreciate it
A 15 minute city just means having things near you without needing a car to get there. We already have many 15 minute cities, some are safe and some are not. I'm sure Upper eastside Manhattan is a safe 15 minute city, while Queens is an unsafe one.
Governments are already in control of cities through zoning, and that's why cities look the way they do. All we want, is for them to relax their control so people can choose what they want to build on their own property.
Some countries deciding to put distant limits during COVID really fueled this conspiracy. They had to make exceptions for those limits if basics weren't available in a particular circle so if the government puts more things local, next pandemic, or even widescale protests, the government confine people much more.
I won't be surprised when confinement in "your home sector" is mandated at some point for those who aren't up to date on their jabberinos and vaxeroonies.
@@SandeepPNair it's often not a typical low density suburb but more high density condos although they still are very unwalkable and far from anything else.
But notice the walled neighborhoods in south Asia that are filled with the wealthy-- they have suburbs. Go to any place on the planet, suburbs exist. The difference is in America, suburbs are not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class. America is bizarre, though. It is unique in the world.
And the worst part is, I don't know if there's a way out of this car dependency, besides just moving to an already walkable city like New York. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of political party or political ideology, are so addicted to cars that they literally can't envision any other way to live. Seriously, you go to Los Angeles, and you will see hippy college liberals spewing the exact same rhetoric regarding cars as boomers in small towns.
I don't drive, and it would be wonderful to live in a 15-minute city. Not only would it cut down on gasoline costs and emissions, but it would also provide a better designed city to live in. People will still travel, so it won't stop anyone from using their car if they wish to. But for those, like me who are home bound simply because they are so far away from everything, it would be a dream come true.
Great video, I used to live a five minute walk from the grocery store, I shopped for food every other day and things were fresh and shit, I forgot about that, I live in giant suburb, and shop for the week
"what has everyone so angry" so you explained the 15 min city concept, fine. I don't seem to recall you saying much of anything about what has everyone so angry.... so, what about it?
Right wing nuts think they will somehow be confined to their 15-minute neighborhood. This is, of course, ridiculous. A 15-minute neighborhood doesn’t confine anyone. Residents are free to go wherever they want whenever they want. The right wing pundits know this, but they rant like lunatics anyway because they make money scaring their followers.
@@garywest9442 what genuine concerns? Being trapped in a 15 minute city and being restricted? That's not a genuine concern. That's bs propaganda. Nothing about those concerns is merited because it's all based off of a lie. None of your fears for these cities are merited because there is no basis in reality for your fears.
@@garywest9442 A genuine concern doesn't have to be a valid one. And the pundits feeding impressionable people these conspiracy theories are hardly genuine either.
I really don't understand why people think of cars as the epitome of freedom. Yes they allow you to get around independently, but they're expensive, loud, take up enormous amounts of precious space and wherever you go you have to make sure you find a parking lot and are actually capable of driving when coming back (basically forcing you to abstain from alcohol if you don't wanna become a menace to society and yourself)
Never again would have to worry about: "My bus was late" Or "My car broke down". Yea how terrible a walkable city must be. Or having friends close by oh no guys.
Urban density means your neighbors can be a constant annoyance, you have no escape when crime and homelessness increase or you have to deal with menacing people on the subway. If you live in a dense city you are at the mercy of landlords, government agencies and police who either cannot or will not be responsive to the population's needs. The best way to get cars off the roads is to have more people work remotely and not allow more big businesses into expensive, overcrowded areas. If more companies were located near small towns, people could have a short commute if they can't work from home. Part of the town could be walkable, but people will prefer the greater selection and lower prices of huge stores.
Small towns are nearly as good for achieving the ideal as denser areas. I expect them to grow in the future. A lot of them are too small for your regular needs though. But, if it is in the sweet spot where you get most basic stuff like groceries and they have decent schools up to the high-school level that helps a lot. The only big issue is that getting starting in the job market there can be hard. Also sometimes healthcare isn't very available. But getting a local doc or clinic at least is feasible.
I live in a suburban area that started out as a tramway suburb in early 20th century. The city initially had little zoning regulation, and many people had home business and there were many small shops and businesses scattered among the homes. Then in the 1950s, new zoning regulations were brought in by the city, mandating single-detached homes, and all of the small shops, general stores and home businesses had to close down. The tramway was ripped out and a new "commercial" zoned area was created along a local regional highway, where big-box chains opened up. Most people do not realize how the layout of our hyper-segregated-by-function low-density suburban sprawl is mandated by zoning regulations. A first step toward the 15-minute city would simply be to liberalize zoning regulations, to allow people to return to the mixed-use medium density urbanism that comes naturally when people are free. The conspiracy theory got started because a few years ago a British city (I think it was Oxford, I`m not sure) decided to implement the 15-minute city using compulsion. They restricted the mobility of motor vehicles using permits, fines and regulation. This misguided, totalitarian, authoritarian approach to the 15-minute city has spurred all of the conspiracy theories.
This is a very valid point! Many neighbourhoods in Canada & US started walkable and were bulldozed for the car. Making streets wider, putting in parking lots, and, unfortunately, forcing many businesses to close. One of the major culprits of this has to be parking minimums, which I may do a video about in the future to show just how destructive they’ve been. As for the Oxford plan, it does seem a bit intense. But considering it only affects personal cars, while motorcycles, delivery trucks, bikes, public transit and walking are all unaffected, I’m interested to see how it will affect the community. With most people only making grocery trips outside their 15-minute city once a week or less, that’s more than enough days not to affect the average citizen. It’s far less restrictive than the nationwide policy that Japan and some other countries have. In any case, not building cities specifically for the car as the priority number one transport seems like a good thing.
Same. 15 minutes walk for me contains... a post box which isn't emptied every day, a bus stop with 8 buses a day and a railway station which will be closing in 18 months time. No shops, no dentists, no doctor's surgery, no hairdressers. My problem with this 15 minute plan is I don't believe they'll put the services in place before removing my ability to get to the ones which exist further away.
@@katielucas3178 From what i'm aware, most efforts being labelled as "15 minute cities" are within dense urban cores. Lack of density is an issue urbanists are trying to solve, nobody wants to just plop shit down knowing that it wont work. Improving density in places that could potentially support it is a huge part of the goal, but there are so many places that will always stay the way they are, and that's completely ok. Low density is best served by cars, but it doesn't mean we should design an entire country in such a way. In the us you'll see dense cities which are heavily car-centric, those are issue at hand right now.
Lockdown zones are what "conspiracy theorists", if that's what you insist on calling them, is what many consider 15 minute cities to be! The term is tainted by the Oxford "experiment" which is definitely NOT just a way to create a walkable city centre or even suburban neighborhood. Oxford council have jumped at the opportunity to put basically "paywalls" to movement via motor vehicle which will effectively restrict movement via fines & tolls. Despite the council statements, the reality is restriction and an obvious attempt to revenue collect! 15 minute city advocates should change the description, "walkable neighborhoods" or something similar maybe.
Most Americans like having their "own space" and their "own things". I have never wanted to live in a large city. I barely like to visit large cities. To most Americans the driving a car represented a sense of freedom, you could go where you want to go when you want to go. Comparing a car to a prison would be the same as waiting for the bus, you are confined to a set location until mechanical movement can be achieved. Now if an urban center was laid out in such a way that one could centrally park and then use a public transport system to accomplish whatever they wanted to do and then return to their vehicle to go home that would work well and it does an example is Disney World. You park in a large parking area, numerous "public" transit options are available to take you to and from the park. You do whatever you want while in the park, you chose a "public" transit option back to your car and go home. Would I want to be "solely" reliant on a public transit option for most of my daily needs? Nope.
I like the idea of a sole place to park outside of the downtown core and then walking, cycling or public transit everywhere else. It would reduce traffic as many cars in the core usually drive around looking for parking, causing traffic. As for not wanting to live in the city, it's not for everyone, and I get that. We should and, in most cases, do have a balance between the two. That should remain.
For this video, I was mainly working around the fact that people are angry that this will result in banning cars, locking people in their districts and forcing people to move when they get new jobs. But, I didn’t cover much beyond that. In the future, I intend to revisit this idea and point by point around other topics people are mad at, including covering who fuels these arguments.
People weren't upset at the prospect of mixed use buildings and spaces or introducing more walkable spaces. People were upset at the idea of adding surveillance across sectors and adding limits regarding the amount of travel that a person can do. If you want people to live in 15 minute cities, do the urban planning, build the infrastructure, and people will naturally want to live that way. You won't need to enforce limitations to keep people from leaving.
This is a topic the obvious liberals in the comment section don’t want to have. The concept is derived from the WEF who have the worst kinds of people in charge. All the surveillance systems are also coming from China, who life tested on the Uhygers. The objective is to rollout a Social Credit System tied to Carbon Credits ans digitized currency that can be georestricted to a specific location and even locked out to prevent movements, as is the case in China.
Maybe thats why that isn't the idea? Stop arguing a strawman lmao And by the way, since it is currently illegal to build 15-minute cities, the argument "well if people want it then they should build it!" is meaningless.
@@cherriberri8373 Illegal to build 15 minute cities...what are you talking about? There are mixed used urban environments all over. If you're talking about getting strict zoning laws overturned in order to allow for mixed use development...the people arguing against that aren't conspiracy theorists, they're NIMBYs trying to preserve property values. And yes, in the UK, there were propositions paired with 15 minute minute cities specifically regarding adding penalties for travel outside of your local sector above a certain allotted amount.
Nobody advocating for these 15 minute walkable cities is advocating for mass surveillance. Where are you getting this from? Also, nobody is advocating for restrictions forcing people to stay in the city. The only restrictions people advocate for are car restrictions in SOME areas so that those few places can be safe for pedestrians only. You're already being watched 24/7 with your phone lol. You have no privacy in this era to begin with.
Urbanites are tone deaf, as seen in this post. Most cities in the U.S. are not safe. So, letting your kids ride bikes in the neighborhood is a really bad idea. Big city govetnment and bureaucracy hold its citizens in contempt, so freedom is restricted not enhanced regardless of walkability or lack thereof. Cramming populations into little box-like spaces means that most will be renters forever. Housing, groceries, transportation and taxes drain household incomes more than in suburban and rural areas. Most cities in the U.S. have been losing population for years.
Those are important concerns. Although, not all neighborhoods are that unsafe crime and otherwise. The biggest danger to biking to school is getting hit by a car. There is a risk that this gets implemented in a way that only leaves renting as an option. So it is important that we consider how it is done to avoid that. It isn't a necessary part of achieving the ideal. To avoid the "Big city government" problem. I personally prefer to increase the density of the largest suburbs and then connect them to main city by train so you have a more local government you can effect easier. But, you still get the benefits. I am not sure if household incomes are drained more in cities. I would expect transportation to be less. And if the rent then housing would cost more likely. Suburban areas are still part of cities even if they usually aren't walkable. I think most of the idea can still work with suburbs if they have good train access and walkability. Although, there are some people who want to dismantle the suburbs completely.
Almost all cities in India despite being messy are practically 15 minute cities more or less. Where residential apartments are built, essential businesses starts flocking around it. While, some reasonable , well enforced zoning is necessary, but strict zoning like in the US and Canada is counterproductive and reflective of a big tyrannical government. As a soft libertarian, I support the concept of 15 Minute citues.
You need to debunk the hatred rather than try to explain why its better. This does nothing for those arguing that governments are creating lock in zones.
I never understood this lock in nonsense. What would be stopping them from doing the same to the suburbs? Throw up roadblocks on any arterial stroad and those people can't get anywhere either. How are they supposed to drive 20 minutes away to Walmart then?
I frame it as the return of the neighborhood corner store, cafes and pubs. My neighborhood isn't considered walkable, but i can walk to a large park and recreation facility, my library can be walked to, i have a convince store where I can walk to on a hot day and not have my icecream melt on the way back. Theoretically i could walk to a grocery store, but its across a busy six lane road
Great video, subscribed! :) I appreciate your more informative style and friendly tone of voice. While I love the snark of Not Just Bikes and City Nerd, it's nice to have creators with a different mindset in how to present these ideas to folks. Re. the video topic -- very weird times to live in, I wouldn't have thought the conspiracy theories would come into this space. I've been hearing in the news about local city planners and other municipal officials being totally baffled by the hate and threats they're getting when it was only the town NIMBYs they had to deal with before lol.
Thank you! I'm hoping with this channel I can help educate people on urban planning without seeming polarizing. My ideal world is someone who is totally against 15-minute cities or other topics I cover, finds these videos and becomes a little less radicalized against and a little more informed. I feel bad for the city planners who are suddenly being hammered with phone calls and emails from outraged citizens when typically, they have a job most people don't even think about.
I believe in always being stocked up with a couple of weeks supply of groceries regardless of distance from the store. Tornadic storms and hurricanes sometimes cut power to where I live. Also, the Pandemic showed us that being stocked up was important. Particularly, when certain cities prevented people from leaving their homes, or when the grocery stores ended up with bare shelves due to panic buying. Although, it never occurred to us to include toilet paper as part of being stocked up. Now we know better and make sure that we have plenty of that on hand, too.
The video assumed everyone who stocks up groceries at home are mostly buying perishables which go bad and are tossed. It can happen but most people aren't like that.
@@jlrva3864 Generally if you want to stock up then buying less perishable things make sense. I keep a stock of staples and canned food in case something like that happens. If you cook a lot then getting fresh vegetables weekly makes a lot of sense. But, if you are going to drive someplace for just veggies then getting them from a CSA works just as well generally. It is overbuying of perishables that has a larger impact.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 True. A lot of the fruits and vegetables that we buy are frozen. We found that we ended up wasting much of the fresh fruits and vegetables. My husband will sometimes make jerky out of some of the meat that he buys if he thinks that he won't be able to use it all before it goes bad.
@@laurie7689 I personally like fresh veggies quite a bit, But that is mainly since I like cooking. I usually go for batch cooked meals which are simple and save a bunch of time and are cheap though.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 Whereas I hate cooking mostly because of all the preparation that it requires to get a decent meal. I eat a lot of frozen dinners and canned soups when I don't feel like doing any cooking or eating out. My husband and I don't like the same kinds of foods. He's a Southern country boy that likes to eat everything fried and I prefer more varied foods than that. We tend to make our own meals separately. Have been doing that for decades now. Our daughter had an unusual upbringing in that she got to pick which meal she wanted to eat from.
The concept of a 15 minute city is well and good, but Oxford City Council already has plans to issue fines to those who drive from zone to zone within their own city, which is ridiculous
@DoubleYouSeeNah You show about the same level of awareness as the Video creator. Somehow rural people aren't spending all of their free time driving to grocery stores and can manage to acquire internet access.
What is the obsession with bugs from anti-urbanists? The same people saying this nonsense will then go eat shrimp, crabs, lobster and crayfish and they are just giant bugs that live in the water.
People are angry about it because every urban planning TH-camr is lying about it. Cities like Oxford are literally tracking your every move by tracking your license plate and sending you a fine if you leave your district for more than 100 days a year, yet TH-camrs like Not Just Bikes claim that it's just a "toll system", which is a blatant lie.
That’s not a 15 minute city issue. That’s congestion taxing or user pays tolling. Just because one place chooses to put two things together doesn’t mean that the concepts are in any way linked.
What video did Not Just Bikes claim that? I didn't see any videos addressing Oxford. Although, maybe I missed it and couldn't find it or it was an offhand comment in a video on a different topic. Every Urban Planning TH-camr lying about it is a strong claim. I am not surprised that UK went for a spooky toll and control system for going out of your neighborhood. fines for leaving more than 100 days a year are just terrible. I don't think that is the only form urban reform has to take. Although, if it is in that form it should be opposed. Opposing transit, bike lanes, zoning reform, and other sensible measures to make to free a lot of people from having to commute by car.
@@chrisduffy2866 It is still a money and data grab. Restricting the right to move is a major no-no to Americans, which is why there is a fundamental fear of it. If you can not pick your neighbor, something has gone wrong.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 My thought exactly... I don't remember NJB talking about this. I watch him, CityNerd, CityBeautiful, etc. and I hadn't heard of the Oxford system (which I'm definitely going to check out). I am just starting to hear the backlash of this concept and wonder if it's more exaggerated in circles that I don't run in.
I am all for this, so long as it is kept limited to cities/urban/metropolitan areas. Suburban and rural people don't want it and shouldn't have it forced on them. I personally think it's great that we can have several types of living environment, and each one can optimize in their own way. For suburban areas, I'd love to see a form of this by allowing small, garage based businesses. Maybe 1 neighbor has a small, garage bar that only seats 10 people and is set up to attract neighbors specifically from that development... And the other neighbor has a small restaurant in their garage offering a few seats and take-out.
Those are some really great ideas! I think limiting suburban environments to only housing and with no home-grown businesses is ultimately a bad thing. When I was a kid in a suburban neighbourhood, I went to a house up the street to get my hair cut (she had a studio in her living room) and a house around the block to buy and fix my bike (they had a great setup in their basement). It was only later in life I realized these were both businesses and not just family and friends. Although my parents were very friendly with them and I became friends with their kids. Ultimately I believe every city or suburban neighbourhood should figure out what works best for them instead of forcing a cookie-cutter approach on everyone. The only idea I preach is less reliance on driving to do everything and the freedom to choose how you want to do things. I think being forced to drive my car for everything I need is not freedom. But as you mentioned, we don't need every service near everyone. Even letting a neighbour open a small business for cutting hair is a step in the right direction.
You can even have the benefits of 15 minute cities where density is low and single-family homes are prevalent. A lot of the "middle suburbs" of Melbourne (say 10-15km from the CBD) are a great example of that. All it takes is to keep them compact in size, and ensure that there is a train station and walkable shopping strip about every 1km (which is a 10-15 minute walk). Allow some density around the station & shopping strip which is required to support the businesses & infrastructure, but then in-fill the residential streets in between with detached suburban houses. That way people are literally getting the best of both worlds. A detached suburban home in a quiet leafy street, that is within a 10-15 minute walk of shops, restaurants, parks, trains, buses, cafes, etc. People may argue that's impossible, or you need greater density to support it, or a shopping strip & station every 1km is too close and unrealistic... Well, that very much IS the reality of the suburbs I grew up in. So it is very much possible, as long as: - Zoning allows for shops & pockets of density about every 1km or so; - Commercial areas are built as "Main Streets" instead of big box stores surrounded by parking lots; - The metro area has extensive suburban rail with at least 1 station in nearly every suburb. My metro area has 222 suburban stations for a population of only 4.9 million.. So I'd suggest 1 station per 20-25k people is very realistic. Simply do that, and those who disagree with 15 minute cities because "I don't want to live an apartment" can very easily have the best of both worlds.
@@Vryheid I agree, but people shouldn't do this in the middle of the city or crowded places. People who live in the suburbs or countryside should drive to park-and-rides located outside the main city. From there, they can take buses or trains to travel into the city.
It's funny, because while the USA has minimum parking requirements, most European cities have maximum parking requirements. f.e. if you build an apartment complex with 50 units, you are only allowed to have 40 parking spots. (not real numbers)
@@Urbanometry So I guess you are proving the point that you want to take people's choice away. "You can drive all you want, as long as it is on a road!"
Fun fact - it is pushed by EU in Poland, funnier fact is that to find a place not like that in Europe would be really, really hard so I dunno what EU will try to make to make improvement which already is there..
The issue are the laws being implemented in some areas designed to limit people rather than creating laws to facilitate change. The U K for example seems to be trying to build with a hammer when they need a scalpel. If 15 minute cities are to survive, they need to position themselves as a unifying idea between liberals and conservatives not limits on the number of times you can drive between city areas in a year.
So tell me something that isn't? It's not like this is the first time a government in the UK has ridden rough shot over the will of the people is it? So what is the straw to break the back of the nullified masses? At least the British stood up during the Poll Tax, but has everyone forgotten how mighty we are together? I guess now Ant and Dec aren't doing the Takeaway, Brits will have a slot on Saturday night to spend time thinking about why it is you get screwed so much by your.governments, and councils, this no matter the t-shirt colour?
Good point. Sadly SEO wins out over perfectly readable titles in this case. I needed to have the keyword “15-minute cities” as close to the start of the title as possible to rank well in search results. However, I did try to make it grammatically correct.
@@Urbanometry this is the sum of our lives, where the popularity outweighs quality of data. I understand the need, and the video is solid regardless. What is happening all over the world is already the world government we say we don't want. Everything we complain about is already fully in motion and the time to stop it has been missed IMO. There have been peasant revolutions but I see little precedent in human history for this not to end violently. Here in lies our challenge. How to stop this unelected one world economic gouging through restriction, fake narrative and incarceration, without spilling blood. We already know the police will stomp on your face for a 5% pay rise if the government says so. Given the events of the crowing of old sausage fingers, Britain is more like the Minority report than it is a great and free democratic nation
Arent major cities already 15 minute commutes? I'm not sure what the problem is, I live 45 minutes from town in the mountains of Tennessee, so I'm not sure why people are freaking out about something that's already been in place for thousands of years, if you don't like the city than leave. If you don't wanna drive almost an hour to get to a town, then move to a city.
Getting to downtown Toronto from a few counties out in the suburbs in rush hour will add one and a half to two hours each way to your commute on public transit. It's 30 minutes on open roads outside of rush hour by car if you are...tactical. It is a frustrating situation, and nobody really trusts these "urbanist" people to be good faith actors. All I really know about Tennessee is that it doesn't have a state income tax.
The conspiracy theorists should realize that it's just as easy to keep suburbanites stuck in their neighborhoods as it would be to keep people in a 15-minute city in their zone. I grew up in the Atlanta suburbs, and I distinctly remember the winter storms that shut down the city a decade ago. The roads were frozen over, and nobody could drive anywhere because very few people in Atlanta had any sort of experience driving in those conditions. If you needed to go to the grocery store, good luck. It was probably a 30-40 minute walk in normal conditions. Until the ice cleared, people were stuck at home. That's how easy it is. When you're car dependent, all it would take is losing your ability to drive to keep you in your neighborhood. If you live in a neighborhood that has one entry/exit point (a.k.a many of them), all it would take is a simple roadblock on that single road in/out of the neighborhood to keep you from driving out. Point here is that the supposed threat to your freedom is already there in our current suburbs, so citing it as a reason to oppose development of 15-minute cities isn't exactly a valid point. If the government really wanted to keep you in your neighborhood, they could do that with a simple roadblock. And, since it's not a 15-minute city, you wouldn't have any necessities nearby.
It's based on the believe in "bad dominance of cars" without any understanding why it happened. Many people live not in the place they'd like to live, but where their job is or where housing is not crazy expensive. If your job is in a shop nearby, you can live in 15-minute city, but in the most cases there is no good job in the place you can afford to live. That's why people have to drive "bad dominant" cars or ride something much bigger than a bike. The "misconceptions" about 15-Minute Cities appeared because they are pushed by environmental extremists whos point is not making people's live better, but to reduce their movements "to save planet".
This problem was created by urban planning centred around the automobile. People didn't always live 40 minute drives from work. It wasn't until we started marketing luxury homes as some form of entitlement that this problem became endemic.
The problem is majority of the population within the radius of 15 minute will have high crime rate %, 20-30 % unemployment rate and poverty will be 20 - 30 %. This isn’t the future we want.
not true, high crime is caused by inequity which is the case in the US cause big corporations and people literally not having control while the government doesn't give a fuck. i live in a high density town in the netherlands, Ede. it has very low crime and i'm able to get to the nearest grocery store on my e-bike within 7 minutes.
What makes you think that? I haven't seen any evidence that level of density leads to crime. Now in some cases the inner city can end up with crime issues. But, in many cases the density there is significantly higher. And and area can become run-down and crime ridden even with low density.
We already have the choice of using the neighbourhood stores and services if and when we want to. Your free to walk and use the bike paths already. This 15 minute city program will limit you to 100 trips outside the zone per year. If you want 15 minute cities then make them so wonderful that you wouldn't want to leave. Everyone should have the freedom to go wherever and whenever they want.
People wouldn't be so concerned if those 15 minutes cities didn't include a system of cameras to track and record every person's movement. They managed to turn something that is foundamentally good like reducing the use of cars to a creepy, expensive and dystopian orvellian style system of people control like those terrible ULEZ in cities like london, oxford etc.. The best way to create livable cities is not to bring 1984 to reality but to remove those ridicolous zoning and parking minimums laws, and to increase public transport. And I'm telling you this while living in a little city in Tuscany where everything is not just within 15 minutes, but 5 minutes, and all of that without those dystopian restrictions. People are right to protest imho.
@@cheeps1329 Lol look at the ulez in london, or even worse, the new traffic zones in oxford, just to mention two of them. The city has been divided into separate zones with movement restrictions between them: basically you are given some kind of "point based system" where you can enter certain zones, or move between them, only 50 or 100 times per year, and in order to implement that, an orwellian style system has been put in place: the city has been filled up with cameras that track the movement of the cars and send fines to those who dare to enter the "wrong" ones, basically locking people inside their own neighborhoods. At least open your eyes before writing comments.
@@Andrea-lj4jg You do understand that in Oxford there is no restriction on using the ring road to travel to other zones right? You seem to have swallowed the conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker. If you lived on a street that commuters used as a rat run, wouldn’t you want something done to prevent it? Preferably a flexible solution that didn’t apply to local residents. How is that dystopian?
@Cheeps I live in New York City. They're already setting up a system to stop people from driving downtown under the pretext of "congestion pricing" and enforcing it with cameras that capture your plate number. I'm not sure if you're gaslighting or just ignorant.
You're already being watched 24/7 through your phone. You have no privacy to begin with. Also, there is literally nobody advocating for such surveillance in these cities so being against these cities because of "supposed" survalience is you arguing against a strawman. Listen to what we want and then make your argument before you go full strawman. 100% of the anti-walkable city comments here are strawmanning.
I live in a village with one Family Dollar, one traffic light and one gas station. The nearest grocery, pharmacy, hardware store etc. is 10 miles away. I can't imagine how it could work here.
Unfortunately, not all areas are suited for this idea, especially in rural areas. These ideas, at least how I see them, are more geared towards cities and especially suburban areas where they have the same issue with the grocery store being far away, but it's all single-family housing between them and the grocery store. On top of that no doctor or hardware store anywhere near their homes.
I've lived in a 15-minutes town most of life - still do. but my bike just got stolen, so it's turned in to a 1 hour town. That's not sustainable, so I need a new bike NOW!
The whole story of needing to go to groceries store, pick up kids from school after work can be reduced to Having the school bus drop kids home, have groceries delivered to your home and jobs involving PC work can be done from home too. my daily 4 hour commute per day has been reduced to just once a week 4 hour commute.
That is very true. There are many different ways to become less reliant on a car. Although I will mention as a kid, I was not too fond of the school bus and always preferred walking. To each their own, though.
Well done. Sub +1 (1:27) I really, really love the neighborhood doodle animation where the town gets more "treed". (5:28) I can confirm that Uruk had zero cars and they did just fine thank you.
I am looking forward to it was well. A channel more focused on arguments and solutions with a broad appeal could be good. This one has potential. I hope it lives up to it.
The thing about grocery-shopping is: how much of the space taken up in your grocery bags is actually packaging? Cut down on the boxed stuff, and you can fit way more groceries in less bags. I can fit about four grocery bags worth of food on my regular (non-cargo) bike, and that includes a gallon milk jug.
You said that Carlos Moreno came up with the idea of 15 minute cities? It was actually a short mustachioed man's henchmen that came up with them as part of a solution for a group of people they didn't like
It seems to me the 15 minute city is what I remember from my childhood. However the concept is being hijacked by "our masters" who really miss the power trip of the covid lockdown to keep the Plebs in their cages and only let them out when absolutely necessary. Orwell's 1984 was written as a warning, not an instruction manual. 😢
I'm in the UK, I don't have a car, but I do own my own house. What would happen to my house if I was moved into a 15 minute city. And in this country, they are talking about fines for people who leave their 15 minute area more than a set number of times. There are no factories, office blocks or anything like that, except in the city center and out of town. My job requires me to work in a different city or country every day. If I am only allowed to travel a set number of days, I would lose my job, so would millions of others.
I live in suburbia. Cannot function here much without a car, especially in inclement weather. I wish I could afford to move to a city. Even the cities around here aren't developed enough to survive without a car. Biking here is kind of dangerous especially for older folks. This video and concept is excellent.
Connecting the things we need, want and enjoy to where we live. Nothing wrong with that at all. Thing is, some of us have been raised ...let's call it Rural... and don't have a lot of use for any city. We need the forests and fields. Want to see the stars at night and enjoy a 15 minute walk where we can be alone with our thoughts, uninterrupted by anything but the wind. My kids are grown and gone. My wife has passed. Your utopian city sounds to me like a slice of hell itself.
Dear Americans, it does not have to be black & white; Banning cars outright is just silly. Dutch cities, for example, allow cars but the trick is...not having to need a car! Everything is walkable; supermarkets, hardware stores, shopping, drugstores, cafes, restaurants. There rest is done with trains or cars.
I first read about the 15 minute neighborhood in 1993 when searching for a town to call home. I discovered the New Urbanism movement and read all the books. Later went to grad school for urban design. Couldn't afford to finish that. (I'm in the USA). But I did move to a cute 15 minute town. It's so fun to run into people you know when walking around town. 😊. A healthy way to live.
Good title. The video presents an argument that shows the most obvious upsides of a 15-minute city and explains the basic concept well. However, It doesn't actually provide counterarguments or answer the core question given in the title.
You don't actually tell "why people are angry".
From what I see there are a couple reasons. The most recent comes specifically from the authoritarianism that happened in oxford and was connected to the idea.
The second older one comes from people who think anything the World Economic Forum promotes is probably evil because they distrust anything those "elites" seem to be pushing top-down. Which kind of makes sense. But, letting their paranoia get in the way of some okay ideas is bad.
The third is because the car and oil lobby hates the idea so they are intentionally smearing it.
Ironically, if the argument was made in the right way. Many of the policy solutions would be pretty appealing to the libertarian and not extreme parts of the right.
If you look at why we currently don't have more 15 minute cities and towns a lot of it comes down to government zoning restrictions.(And a little bit of racism and corporate greed.)
So if you said you wanted to remove restrictions on what kind of things can be built. Or reduce ongoing tax bills by reducing the amount the city needs to pay in loan payments. Basically the kind of arguments "strong towns" is making. Even investment in transit can be sold there if you can show how that would take much less subsidy than roads in the long run.
The freedom concerns are at the core of a lot of the anger. Although, it is being stirred up from several sources. Some manipulative, others more genuine.
15 minute lockdown zones, or completely banning all personal car ownership would be oppressive. Having cities where most people don't need cars. But the people who really want them can have them or rent them on a short term basis is a good idea. That isn't the same thing as having no cars.
A second area of somewhat justified concern is dislike of cities and skyscrapers.
Living in an apartment isn't for everyone. And if density is too large, all housing will probably be apartments. This is seen as a threat to home ownership. And honestly, some Urbanists do seem to hate home ownership almost as much as they do cars. What many people miss is that there are many forms of living that are between what a suburb generally is and a large apartment building. Ownership can coexist with density to a degree. Density could at least be doubled or tripled and still allow a decent amount of private ownership. That would also make houses cheaper since they would need less land and could be constructed with cheaper methods per sq. ft. Row-houses and other semi-detacted houses can bring a lot of density. Town homes that stack multiple private houses vertically and sharing a lawn between 2-4 families can also make things much more affordable while still giving many of the benefits of a suburb while allowing most needs to be within 15 minutes.
Things being walk-able is more like living in a small town than in a giant city in my view.
One of the core ideas you don't seem to cover that Carlos Moreno mentions is that he wants to decentralize employment. I think this is a good idea that could be taken too far. It would massively cut down on commuting. But, I don't think 0 commuting is possible unless each neighborhood is a lockdown area. Or alternatively, housing was connected to a particular job and assigned to people rather than bought on a normal market. As you can't ensure that all types of jobs are near all people without a high level of control or employment based segregation. Which would probably be tyrannical or at least some form of communist.
I think the ideal is to reduce commuting to a sensible degree and then make the remain communicating happen via a robust rail network. "15 minute cities" with transit has a lot of potential. Without transit, it would remove opportunities for laborers. In that case, all the things you need to buy can be walked or biked to. And then you can get to your job by train or bike.
Fantastic points, and I agree with almost all of them. I really wish I had you to bounce ideas off when I was initially writing and researching this video. However, I've certainly jotted them all down now. I hope you don't mind if I pin your comment. I think it adds to the nuance of this topic from a very level-headed point of view that viewers would be interested in reading.
@@Urbanometry Wow, thanks! Well, I would be happy to allow you to bounce ideas off me for some of your future videos.
If you want I can send an email to the business email attached to your channel so you have my email so we can talk more later.
If I knew it was going to be pinned I probably would have tried to edit it to be more concise. I can be a bit wordy sometimes. Although, I do enjoy editing things down too.
Although, as a PS. using the point about the car industry having an incentive to smear 15 minute cities. I think personally think that is true. But, it fairly close to an Ad Hominem attack. Although, there is a bad incentive. That doesn't completely dismiss an concern they raise unless it is an outright lie.
To an extent, the missing middle is generally portrayed in a different video than the one talking about 15 minute cities by urbanists.
But, in my view it forms a major part of the core of addressing the actual concerns of normal people who are worried about 15 minute cities. My main philosphy to argument is to try to understand what the other person actually wants and what they really dislike. Then address those concerns.
The only thing that gets tricky is how to deal with a good point against a position. I generally prefer to acknowledge but the propose something that addresses the weakness.
Although, in some formats it makes sense to just focus on the strengths. As downplaying your own position can just make you seem like the position is weak.
i wonder how this works for those that want to be business owners? Doesn't seem like entrepreneurship would do well in these kind of cities. Wouldn't be enough room, esp competing with the box brand companies.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 Yes please, if you don't mind sending me an email it be great to get into contact. Overall from your original comment I think it's long, but I don't think it's wordy, as each thing you mentioned flowed well and added to the topic. If you choose to edit the comment, that's up to you. 😀
@@marlak4203 15 minute cities in general?
Or those medium density developments?
generally if you have a mixed use development it would add more opportunities for small retail companies since foot traffic has a massive effect on retail performance. It is part of why malls charged so much for slots. People like that experience and that is part of why people would drive so they could walk and shop.
One particular idea I like is to have a mall/apartment block hybrid. You could still have some parking. But, ideally you give it one main transit access point. And then maybe some form of micro-transit like those little golf cart trains.
You have 1-3 main level of the mall. But you build a little higher and have apartments stacked top. Or if you have an older mall having some trouble. You could take some of the areas that used to have big box stores that faced the outside and renovate them appartments.
Over the years i notice how the same people that complain about being stuck in traffic for decades , also want to counter every alternative solution to solve it.
Listen if they were just going to build the cities there would be no issue, it's the plans to monitor an fine people that's the problem.
They are professional victims.
My father call these people the Complaints Department. No solutions, just whining.
No they don't. They just object to tyranny. Why does every fashion have to be enforced upon everyone, through force?
It is because the alternatives are forced upon them by borderline retarded central planers in the most stupid way imaginable.
The solution is not to remove cars and their infrastructure by force and central planing! This video still has that point of technocratic view as seen in 5:00 where the video gloats about removing private cars.
The real solution is to remove zoning so businesses, schools and shops can organically pop up where the customers and workforce is located.
That was the other thing we did not have in the old days apart from cars. ZONING!!!
The funniest thing to me about this is that neighborhoods that are like 15-minute cities are the most desirable places to live and are priced well above what most people can afford. Yet, we still don't build them. It might be useful to see who funds these groups railing against 15-minute cities.
Cars, fossil fuels, concrete, rubber and steel, fast food and movies. These are the likely suspects.
The high price is largely a function of scarcity. Ironically, some of the opposition to 15 minutes cities is probably coming from landlords and homeowners who already have such places to live, because expanding the number of housing units available in 15 minutes cities would push down their property values.
They existed everywhere before walmart killed almost all of them. This isn't an issue of Urban Planning but one of economics
It's most likely the Investors who wnat to own emplty buidlings hoping to profit off their rising values along with other greedy elits.
The fossil fuels and materials industires are just their fall guy.
Some of these local towns or neighborhoods with amenities and needs within a 15 minute walk have movie theatres. The town next to where I live has a movie theatre next to the train station and close to some local businesses and a supermarket.
Okay, I did a little research. People initially got angry not about the concept of a 15-minute city, but about restrictions on the freedom to go anywhere. This is not about a city for pedestrians, but 15-minute zones that you cannot leave without special permission. So amazing concept of walkable city was confused with lockdown zones.
Alas, some people have an over active fantasy.
There are no such zones. And creating them would be a disaster.
The 15 minute city is a place where you can walk from your home, to the store, in under 15 minutes.
@@danbeaulieu2130 I would recommend you look up Oxford Council's official statements on "traffic filters" (they have a PR-friendly explanation on their official website). They are planning to mail fines to people who don't have permission to pass through the "filter." They are very generously "allowing" residents to "apply for a permit" to pass through the filters up to 100 days per year without being fined. They are literally planning to use fines to penalize people from driving places and, at most, will allow exceptions for 1/3 of a year. How is that not a lock-down zone of some kind? The Oxford issue is what has all of the "conspiracy theorists" up in arms because it is something being imposed from the top-down without any apparent effort to encourage things to happen organically.
I have no objections to the original concept of a 15 minute city (being a walk-able city with all needed amenities close by). In fact, I think it's how cities SHOULD be built. I do have a problem with government tyranny. Some bureaucrat being able to A) arbitrarily decide whether or not I have a "legitimate" reason to enter a different part of my own city and B) actively impose penalties for this definitely sounds like tyranny to me.
@@danbeaulieu2130 Theres even video footage of drivers removing the bollards they installed between zones and filling the post holes with cement or just driving over them since they were plastic, the concept is good in theory, but there is a reason alot of small local shops shut doors and went out of business, less then 10years ago the village i live in had its own butcher and 2 small general stores each doing there best not step on each other toes by not selling the same stuff, the owner retired the store closed, the butchers not sure why they shut up possibly the same reason or it just wasn't profitable.
Heck alot of areas in cities in america even have shops pulling out of some areas due to high crime, how are your 15minute cities ment to cope with that?
@@dashsocur
So Oxford is being authoritarian.
And what does this have to do with 15 minute city planning?
@@danbeaulieu2130 I was responding to: "Alas, some people have an over active fantasy. There are no such zones. And creating them would be a disaster."
I then pointed to a place that is legitimately trying to create "such zones" and the reply I got sounded like a dismissal of Oxford "being authoritarian." (Incidentally, I do agree with you, creating such zones would be a disaster.)
You and I both know that what Oxford is doing and actual 15 minute city planning are not remotely the same thing. The problem is that the news about Oxford's insane interpretation of it is the first that most people have ever heard about the idea (and for some reason, they don't like it). Rightly or wrongly, the two are now linked in the public consciousness and we can't pretend otherwise just because we don't like it. Pretty much all of the clips in the introduction of this video were people responding to Oxford's interpretation of 15 minute cities rather than the concept in and of itself but they are being derided as conspiracy theorists instead of people with legitimate criticisms.
Grocery: 5 min
Doctor: 5 min
Dental: 5 min
Work: 15 min (Bike), 40 min (Walk)
Park: 10 min
Restaurant: 5 min
Berlin.
"15 minute cities", or as we used to call them, "cities".
Rats: 1 min
Berlin.
@@oLii96x 10 seconds....
My local doctors was 5 min walk. They have just centralised services and moved. Its now a 30 min drive away or 45 min bus ride on a bus that runs every hour on the hour. Just what I would need when Im feeling unwell.
@@pandoorapirat8644 rats 1 second NYC
UK person here, this video is excellent. I'd say nearly every city here in the UK is a 15 minute city, but that's based on pure history, so although we do drive, we opt to walk a lot to stores etc, just out of convience, amazing video
Just a shame that some small businesses are struggling, and some of the smaller versions of supermarkets price gouge . But I'm so glad I can pop to the chemist, grab some stuff for dinner and maybe have a coffee or a pint if I want to without needing to drive
@@MarkonaBike I certainly think there should be some governing rules about corporations (like tesco) just being able to slap 1000 stores in a 5 mile radius, but I agree, just being able to take a 10minute walk and being able to get anything I need, is just amazing
What if you can't walk. I am limited to 100 feet. Guess you have to drop dead.
Create the world you want. Stand together, withhold your taxes. Establish new councils and leadership..do this using real people, who really live among you, and so genuinely love and understand the community and it's local nuances and needs.
Overwrite the broken systems that surely exist only because of the mass consent continues to support them, despite the hearts crying out for change.
British variety is being trashed. Habits local traditions and history eradicated. Everyone is moving towards a single blob like, spineless entity. We will look back and rue out missed chances to make our lives better.
Build back better, yes by removing the worthless and treasonous poachers we currently call governments and councils.
Waste of time to vote Labour or Tory when we know both are failing and driving us in directions that don't favour us
@@partidaportet27 What
I find it funny that we had to "discover" 15 minute cities, as if our ancestors hadn't already done that centuries ago.
Lmao truth! 😂
Auto manufacturers have done one hell of a job lobbying and promoting car-centric values into not just American consciousness that it's a "freedom" to (be required) to own a car but also changing actual laws to make sure their product survives. Wouldn't need so many cars if you weren't required to have one to commute from work to home. Wouldn't need a car if there was a consistent train/tram/bus route. Not to mention taking the train frees your time for a nap, meditation, school work, or whatever else you want to do instead of being focused on that moron from X state here trying to side swipe you during rush hour.
And the rest of world still building walkable cities.
@@scopie49 Its not some conspiracy the only reason were talking about this now is that 30 years ago less people lived in cities so traffic wasn't as bad as it is now.
Our ancestors didn't. Cities have been 30 minute since the Neolithic. It's the Marchetti constant.
Every point they use against 15 min cities is actually what car-centricity is about.
I've followed a couple urban planning channels for a year or so and only just found out about 15 minute cities from a coworker. He was avidly against them because of the fear of not being able to leave your "15 minute zone" and then being afraid he'd be taxed for driving and wanting to live further away. Conspiracy carbrains are such an odd group.
@@scopie49 it was literally trialed in a place in London... You're helping them screw you
@@scopie49 reminds me of how people against feminism describe problems with society that are caused by existing structures that feminism is trying to change. It is has turned into politics instead of the actual substance of the matter
@@scopie49 dont think it is "carbrains" but clickbait "media" trying to rile up a "conservative" GOVERNMENT-IS-BAD group
even ELECTRIC cars are getting "painted" with "take away our freedom" by low range and SLOW charging
there is a group taking "advantage" to drive a narrative and "activate" a demographic against ANY change and ANY government
@@JustATrippyDuck it is politics, politics is just what we call people arguing about how to organize civilization
The irony if of nimbys is incomprehensibly mindblowing. It's so ironic that one of them talked about "freedom of choice," yet being forced to own a car just to have the ability to participate in society is not only the epitome of tyrannical restriction of movement, but also a mandatory tax forced upon everyone. True freedom is being able to choose how you get around. That's a human right.
The freedom to walk, bike, take the bus/tram, or drive a car vs. being forced to buy a car from one of a handful of mega-corporations to participate in life. Gee, wonder which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory 🤔
I am always amused by the phrase "being forced to own a car". Why aren't homeless people own a car? Is there no one forcing them?
@@onetwothreeabc Because they can't afford a car? Not having a car is a permanent barrier to getting a job if you aren't in one of America's few walkable areas.
@@eddiehazard3340 Not having a car is a permanent barrier from employment, so if you can't afford one, you're basically trapped in poverty.
@123abc When I was at the town hall in my city recently, a homeless man was begging the counter for free bus tickets so he could get across town to a job interview. The place he needed to go was over an hour away, and while he walked everywhere, he couldn't walk there in time. He was very much at a disadvantage without having a car, as it was barely a 10-minute drive on the highway. I'm sure he could have looked for a job closer if the option was there, but the way my city is zoned, all of the commercial buildings are huddled in one area far away from the town hall. Luckily my city gives free bus tickets to anyone experiencing a similar situation, and he was hopefully able to make it on time. This is what it means to be “forced to own a car,” without a car, he is at an extreme disadvantage while trying to access the same essential services someone who owns a car doesn't struggle to access at all.
There is some degree of irony in calling 15-minute cities tyrannical. Many of our cities today are designed according to strict zoning regulations which directly restrict, among other things, where people can live and where businesses can open.
I think there is an irony. Although, I think there is a nugget of truth that has to be addressed. Overall, 15-minute cities have the potential to bring more freedom. But, there is the risk of them being implemented in a tyrannical way.
Simply banning single family zoning would result in things getting better through actions of the market. Although, not everywhere would get better. And some people's houses would become more valuable and those further away would lose value.
What happens if there are no such restrictions?
It ends up with residents complaining about noise from industry, trucks delivering things in the middle of the night, music being played loudly, noise from large numbers of people and so on.
The solution to which was to keep them separate.
@@shaun5552 And making all zoning single-use is colossally expensive, colossally inefficient, colossally damaging, and imposes a colossal socioeconomic toll on society.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 WTF, markets and capitalism don't give a single shit about zoning, urbanism, and nice living environments. It's just maximum profits, and more taxes for the city.
@@Simboiss I agree it doesn't care directly either way. However, many of the principles behind making a nice environment are more profitable if there aren't too much subsidies distorting things. Markets currently do making nice living environments. But most of them are not that affordable. So they aren't super accessible.
Roads are collectively funded and subsidized.
If you are looking at a priority on taxes. Walkable main streets and town centers bring in much more tax revenue for the amount of land used than strip malls. Parking also doesn't directly bring in tax money. Unless it is paid parking. But even that doesn't bring in as much.
Markets won't bring utopia, and they can allow shady people to benefit or hurt people, but they can go things sometimes.
Zoning isn't a capitalist thing anyways. That is a government thing. To an extent "capitalism" benefits from current zoning law in the sense that big oil and car companies benefit. But they aren't the only type of big company.
To give a mixed example, Houston has a much wider area of medium density and less skyscrapers since they have pretty lax zoning. Although, they also have very very heavy highway investment and meh transit so despite a little bit higher density the typical walk-ability is meh. You do see more neighborhood businesses though so non-commuting walkability is a bit better. We do still see quite a lot of large lawns though and full on suburbs where the land is cheaper though. Which shows that if zoning is the only thing that is changed it isn't going to magically fix everything. But, that will make some elements better.
I don't want to completely abolish zoning though. I just think that at medium low density commercial and residential zoning should be mostly mixable.(Putting a shop in your front lawn, or converting the first story of a multi-story house into a bar/shop, etc.)
And at higher density they should be fully mixable.(Appartments with shops on the ground level stuff.)
Stuff that cause extreme amounts of noise like nightclubs and stuff should be reserved for the edges of those zones though.
Large parking lots should also be prohibited there since they create a lot of light pollution to make safe at night.
And any industry that makes noise or has a pollution risk should be in separate industrial areas.
Daaamn they even turned walkable cities into a conspiracy theory 🤣🤣 great video!
it is NOT a conspiracy theory! Wake up! It is putting you in a prison!
@@BVforFreedom lol, great satire
Yep, when I heard about the backlash I lost the last drop of hope I had for humanity.
Wef, you will own nothing and you will be happy
Eat crickets
15 minutes cities
Thats how lobbying works, doesnt matter if its true or makes any sense, they got paid to say those things so it doesn’t matter to them lol
I don't understand the wishy-washy argument that a 15 minute city planning program "limits choices". What choices do people in the suburbs and bedroom communities currently have? You have to get in a car to drive at least 10 minutes to the nearest box store or supermarket strip mall, which are all chain franchises. The restaurants and cafes are not locally owned. You may have a gym membership, but the company that provides it is on the other side of the city from where you live or work. Entertainment options are limited to maybe a single movie theatre, but there's no culture or identity to these sprawling neighborhoods with single family dwellings on them.
I currently live in a downtown urban setting. From my home I can walk to the grocery store and pharmacy. There's parkland two blocks from my house. There's public and high schools within 15 minutes walking distance. My gym is 30 minutes away walking, or I can take a bus to get there in 10. There's local bars, coffee shops, restaurants, and bakeries steps from my front door. The main road has a designated bicycle lane, and buses come along the road every 5-15 minutes. There's even a sports complex where I can go watch live games at the stadium, two cinemas, and a music hall for live concerts. Work is an hour commute for me, but my office has allowed for a hybrid work environment, so I can rest easier having days where I can sit at my dining room table to get tasks done and then go out for a walk. Life is good, and because I don't have to go far for the things I need or want, I don't currently own a car. When I do need to travel distances, I can bus, take the train, or rent a vehicle.
It has strengthened my connection to the community in ways that I know other people do not comprehend or get to enjoy. When I lived out in the suburbs, I only knew my neighbors on one side, and no one else. It was isolating and lonely. Where I live now, I can greet people I see on my daily walks, I know the shop owners, I have met my neighbors from even a few blocks down. I feel happy being more sociable, and instead of coming home in the evenings, beat down, tired, and cranky, I am feeling energized and ready for other activities that don't involve doing chores around the house, or simply vegging out in front of the TV until bedtime. THAT'S what real choice looks like, and it bothers me that detractors of the 15 Minute City don't see how that makes me more free.
So what's the problem, people who want to use a car can and those that don't, don't. You do what you want and leave other people alone.
@@alanrobertson9790 but this is the main crux of the issue when it comes to city planning. They're building further afield from the city center without supplying needed infrastructure, mass transit, school options, daycares, and other necessities, which is just developing land for the sake of development. I worked in tract home building for a few years, and it was entirely car centric design - every home had two car garages, every block was single family dwelling units, no corner stores or shops, or central athletics/community centers for people to congregate at. People who live there have no choice BUT to drive, which means it's not really a choice, but an imposition. Every game day, my neighborhood is flooded with street parked cars from people attending the local stadium who don't want to pay for parking on site. They take the local shuttle from a few blocks up so they don't have to walk. Wouldn't it make more sense to have reliable transit near the places these people lived so they can ditch the car at home and not have to worry about finding parking? Why not embrace systems that are scaled to human needs instead of basing it around parking metrics and travel times?
@@BrokeredHeart Mass transport systems only become feasible in a city of a few million. The reason cars are popular is that it takes you where you want to go. For me in outer London it was 25 mins walk to nearest Tube station, 30 min tube trip followed by 10 min walk. In the evening I rarely got a seat. Sometimes the trains were cancelled/blocked/strikes. Sometimes it poured with rain and the pavements were icy. By car same trip would have been 30 min mornings and 50 min evenings, in better comfort. Anecdotal but common. For most journeys cars are simply much more efficient, centre of London excepted. The same car can drive you to north of Scotland with luggage. That is why cars are popular and work for most people and why even free public transport would not compete. The reason why ideological politicians want to impose restrictions is because cars work. Otherwise they wouldn't have to and it wouldn't be an issue.
@@BrokeredHeart PS As a further comment your text is where you want to be, not where we are now, and to get there you want to wreck what currently works. Don't let the perfect wreck the good. People need to live in the meantime and the enforced changes make life worse, not better. Ref Oxford and London ULEZ.
@@alanrobertson9790 but cars don’t work. Unless by work you mean great cogestion, unwalkable neighbourhoods, and debt. Car dependents cities don’t provide choice. They force everyone into a car. An expensive and dangerous machine that about half the people don’t want to use. You say give people choice but leaving things as is does the opposite.
And transit works just fine in small cities, as long as they aren’t built car size but are built human size. A shopping centre shouldn’t require three bus stops because the parking lot is so big it takes three blocks.
I grew up in a very Urban city across from Manhattan in New Jersey and we didn't own a car for the first 10 years of my life. Our Schools, Grocery stores, shops, playgrounds & family all were within walking distance. If we needed to go further we just took Public transportation. It wasn't until we moved to Florida that we HAD to get a Car just to make everyday tasks achievable. To me that was true Freedom not having to be a slave to a automobile.
Would you believe me if I told you that Florida has way more Urban Planning than NYC does? More than Tokyo does, more than many beautiful small towns across the world.
@@linuxman7777elaborate.
Why did you guys move to Florida from such a great city?
@@shahzebnasir4692 Probably the costs, though Florida is getting bad now too.
@@RazgrizWing Well that's what I mean. This is what happens when you start to pack densely into big megalopolises like NYC and NJ. You get more people looking for houses which means smaller houses go for much more money, you don't get a nice bedroom or even in unit laundry or even a view for close to $4000 in rent a month, crime goes up and so does filth and homeless people and not to mention all the policies that decriminalise a lot of crimes thus empowering many criminals to do more and increasing taxes on people to no end. You get public transport and don't need cars but then parking prices go through the moon because space is at a premium and your public transport continues to decay further and further to where women and children feel unsafe riding on it but hey at least you can walk to your local laundromat right and don't need a car?
Then once you realise that same city you praised is beyond saving and way too expensive you jump ship for a state that is more free, has no income tax, has a much better standard of living and far less crime and homeless people and you then once again begin to vote in the same policies that seek to transform the place you ran to into the same hellhole you initially ran from because hey at least we could walk everywhere there and didn't need to drive around am I right?
It's a joke that people don't realise the irony here.
Car enthusiasts should definitely support the idea of reducing car dependency, better public transit, and creating safer streets for the people by getting rid of motor vehicles.
I mean *Cycling And Rollerblading enthusiasts.
I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This is a 15-minute city. For me a 15-minute city means freedom. The best example that I can give is regarding the freedom it gave to my daughters. When my daughters were young we transported them around in our box bike. They could see where they were going, they could hear the city, they could ask about what they were seeing. Later on they cycled with us through the city learning them how to interact in traffic. Once they got a little older they went on their own to school and sports along known routes. And once they got around puberty they started to get around on their own just sending us a message where they were going.
But still living in a society where a kid needs to be transported around by the soccor mom untill their 16th is the utopia of freedom? No way.
Lemme guess. No helmets.
My Mom, when she visited me, loved that a store a few hundred meters away had all the basic groceries needed for dinner, despite being tiny, smaller than most convenience stores. Meats, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables, more. One could simply shop for a single night's dinner if desired. This was in a distinctly *suburban* part of a UK city.
I think that urbanists would do well to present an overall vision that people could see themselves in, like the above, rather than endless images of foreign-looking cities. My Mom's girlhood home in a 50,000 person American city was in a walkable neighborhood with well kept sidewalks separated from quiet streets, across the street from a well kept park, a shop at the corner, and all the same way 75 years later when I visited. And it was and is affordable. Harken to that, not some alien seeming land far away. Maybe many Americans came from those lands, but the generations born in America never saw that. It's not a hard sell when you relate it to positive experiences from the past, and express it as a positive vision rather than anti car. Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns points out that highways could be faster if one put the city-edge businesses on access roads, so the highway could be 65 miles an hour with fewer intersections. Others point out that the Netherlands typically ranks top in the Driver Satisfaction Index produced by Waze (the driving app), despite also being very walkable, bikeable, good transit. It's not either or, it's the best of each. America is a well off country; the vision should be the best of the best, accessible again to the masses, not just the few.
I completely agree. With this video, I tried my best to show how drivers could benefit from a 15-minute city, as I own a car and can't see myself living without it. Especially as many of my own family members live far out in rural areas inaccessible without a car, however, I can see that my focus on Paris and especially ancient cities may not fit so well with explaining the benefits to people here in the West. Thank you for your insight! I'll certainly take this into account when making my next video.
9:47 That same maddening self-fulfilling prophesy when flipped in reverse is the equally-maddening "in order to get your first car, you need a car, to get the car."
If your 15 minute city works as intended, then you should be able to own a car or take public transportation, yet you wouldn’t need to use either for everyday life
I say: Keep all parking lots on the outskirts of town. One should be able to walk to them or take a quick bus trip. But they would not be inside the city, so all streets would be walking or bikable, there could be porches instead of driveways, and so forth.
And then, we could really enforce laws that keep bikes, scooters, skate boards and so forth off the sidewalks, because the streets would be safe for them, making the sidewalks safe for pedestrians.
@@milascave2that only works in a very small city.
Words cannot explain the rage I felt the moment I learned this became a conspiracy theory. Like a conspiracy theory against healthy food or exercise.
Stacking humans in boxes is not healthy. Prove me wrong.
@@mr.b3168 What do you mean stacking, people always lived in communities ? When you go to a hotel room do you feel bad and in a box ? Living in a big and vibrant city is a luxury, the streets and parks are your garden, so yeah it is healthy for the mind and for the body (walking bicycling) and in the USA you don’t find that feeling (apart from NYC) it’s just industrial extended countrysides
@@antoineb9760 People have not always lived in communities. It's not healthy. It's a modern aspect of modern life.
@@mr.b3168 If we're going to live in urban areas, this is the way to build them . If you'd rather live a rural lifestyle away from "community" that's fine, but suburban sprawl is horrible for us and the worst of both worlds.
@@mr.b3168 Have you even watch the video ? Yeah suburban american way of life is not healthy, it is an aspect of newborn countries. Exactly as you said.
I bet you should have addressed more concerns about why everyone was so angry. This include things like poor timing (people had lockdowns still fresh in their minds) and poor execution (it's better to use carrot than a stick to achieve walkability. Do what Utrecht does, not what Oxford does).
Thanks for your feedback! You make some solid points about the timing and approach to 15-minute cities. I'll be sure to revisit this topic and dig into those concerns in future content. Appreciate your thoughtful input.
People lost trust in public institutions not being one step away from controlling you. The Car outside of rush hour in the US means you can go anywhere now. Even during Covid lockdowns you could just move to a place with your car that didn’t give a fuck. 15 minute city means that GTFO ability is gone and doesn’t help it proposed as a way to lock in people instead of a way to help people(unlike this video)
@@EmpReb I can see why people would fear that. However, a car does not give you any more freedom from a tyrannical government than public transit or cycling would. If cities really wanted to force us into our homes, they could just put up barriers and block the roads. Same effect as forcing people into their homes by stopping public transit or whatever other actions people fear they would do. If public institutions really are one step away from controlling us, then having a car doesn’t grant us any more protection from that anyway.
100%. That's what i saw in the news as to why so many people are against this.
That is my thing with this whole urban planning schtick so many have been pushing RIGHT as we were dealing with Covid (living close together. Get out of a car and ride transit with others, etc) I mean...um...why would you think promoting togetherness with strangers would go over great when we are all running away from each other and also being TOLD by governments to be apart?
Talking about carrots and sticks reminds me of the Nudge Unit (search for "SPI-B apology") and brings some unpleasant memories. How about just offering people options?
I've asked a number of people why they were opposed to the 15-minute city concept. I also listened. Here's what I learned:
1) They are NOT opposed to walkable neighborhoods.
2) They are (mostly) NOT anti-transit.
3) They feel they've been betrayed by politicians regarding these types of grand plans on numerous occasions -- and who in the world hasn't?
4) They ARE opposed to sweeping mandates and financial penalties.
5) They ARE turned completely off by the elitist, condescending, authoritarian attitudes exhibited by MANY of those who promote the concept. You see it on some of the urbanist channels here on YT, but this video certainly does a better job of explaining it in a non-condescending manner than most!
6) They don't necessarily believe that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, but they cannot help but have noticed that many of the predictions made in the 90s simply did not come to pass, blatant fear-mongering has been leveraged into personal fortunes, world leaders who harp on about rising sea levels keep buying oceanfront mansions and flying around the globe in private jets while urging the middle class to make meaningful sacrifices, and a certain type of political parasite insists that they can "change the weather" if all of you plebs just surrender more of your money to them. It's not helping the urbanist cause that many of these people are the same ones promoting the 15-minute city concept.
7) They're more worried about out-of-control taxation and government spending, skyrocketing crime rates, runaway inflation, and the devaluation of their savings. They're more concerned about being forced to eat pet food in their retirement than if they can walk to the grocery store to buy it.
TLDR: It isn't the concept itself that turns off some people. It's the way it's being presented and those who are presenting it!
There's still an awful lot of ignorance embedded in those "concerns". Not the innocent sort like "I'd never heard of that before" but more like "That guy is criticizing suburbs, what an arrogant asshole!" People like that are damaged, and it's incredibly frustrating to try to have rational conversations with them.
@@LoveLearnShareGrow Congratulations! You just irrefutably proved my point #5. You definitely win people over to your side by calling them ignorant, damaged, and irrational. That's certainly what loving, learning, sharing, and growing is all about. Thanks for participating in the conversation!
@Colorme Dubious lol, just like that huh
@@alexharris2495 I assumed it was intentionally ironic and sarcastic to illustrate the point. Although, even in the most uncharitable interpretation I can think of he only implied WildNights was unloving, uncaring, and elitist. Not ignorant though.
@@colormedubious4747 Indeed, anybody who knows what I'm talking about will take your response as proof of our views as well. You did not share the opinions of others, you shared your own ignorance couched in an opinion-poll style. You do not seek to learn, you seek to take offense and shut down the conversation. I have spent many years carefully crafting the most compassionate and thoughtful ways to help educate people on topics such as this, but I've found it to ultimately be a colossal waste. The mere suggestion that you might have something to learn would be taken as a great offense. Instead, I now test the waters as above, and anybody who is more interested in learning than being offended will ask questions. I am usually quite happy to expand on anything I've said, with no insults for anybody participating in good faith, which you were not.
In The Netherlands and probably in most European cities we are literally living this way for years.
By the way i´m glad that you´re able to explain this 15 minute city concept in a more comprehensive way for people to understand what it actually really is, compared to crazy conservative conspiracy theorists that complain about everything they themselves don´t understand.
But i guess that 15 minute city concept has to be carefully induced into the public conscious so that it becomes accepted overtime.
I visited Den Haag last spring (and am returning tomorrow) and was blown away by how the city is designed. After living my entire life in American cities where a car is required to do everything, it was really eye-opening to see how pleasant a city can be when you design it properly.
@@jeffreybruner5462 I find Den Haag not my convenient place to live but i can see what you mean.
I myself live in Dijk en Waard (Heerhugowaard) a small municipality where this 15 minute concept is common thing..
th-cam.com/video/a-pDqb933dQ/w-d-xo.html
This is the case in all the places where I have lived (Cuijk, Nuenen and Helmond) always at minimum 2 streets away from a grocery store, other shops and multiple schools and also decent public transportation.
@@Siranoxz I agree it can vary by neighborhood in Den Haag. Some are better than others.
... most adults even in Netherlands have cars, despite what media says.. Wikipedia cars per person, 550/1000 so adjusting for 20% under 18 that's 750/1000. Even Japan is 500.... Nonpoor people dont wanna walk and skip in ice and rain or even be cold... But govt don't care what people want, they'll ban.. Stalin would be proud, elected leaders tellling people they can't have free movement...
I live in east Oxford which was the centre of these protests. The irony is that it is already a 15 minute city. Every kind of shop, space, healthcare, leisure, etc. is within a 15 minute cycle.
So it's all about the surveillance then?
@@cebruthius it's about congestion. In the 1950s Oxford used to knock down large quantities of housing to make way for roads. This became unpopular for obvious reasons. As a result Oxford has too many cars for it's few main roads. The filters in Oxford will balance this issue..
There was a choice of using immovable blocks or filters. Filters seemed fairer to motorists which later complained about the surveillance :-)
@@edwardlsanders In today's political climate it would be wiser to give people options instead of restrictions?
@@cebruthius cars are a restriction, hence the need to restrict them. Don't need a car to buy a months worth of groceries everyday. Don't need a car to walk a mile. The need to provide parking for a car that drives a mile could be better spent.
Zone charging only exists because people unnecessarily congest streets.
@@mikewade777 From my perspective here in the Netherland your neuroticism is amusing.
I speak Russian and it's mind-blowing how similar Russians and Americans are. Both have to turn EVERYTHING into conspiracy. If you're a politician, you just need to frame any issue in terms of conspiracy and then you get a flock of obedient sheeps who believe that they're critical thinkers.
I never thought I would find myself in the "Reducing urban sprawl, soul-killng commutes, the destruction of nature and pollution is a conspiracy theory" timeline and yet here we are.
live in the pod and eat the bugs, goy
Conspiracy theorists are bizarre.
how did we go from distrusting large authorities to distrusting every single government authority? i consider myself a conservative, but the united states has completely lost any semblence of a conservative party. i hate it.
I've encountered a common thread online while researching 15-minute cities that strongly points the finger at car and oil companies for fueling the hatred of any idea that reduces our need for cars. But I need to do more research on this before I’m confident enough to make a video about it. I think this is one of the main reasons we get such hysteria in North America. Half of it is a public outcry, fueled by the other half, which is private interest groups.
@@Urbanometry wouldn't be the first time they've done it
@@Urbanometry In my view each of the two major parties in America is funded by a different type of capitalist. The republicans are influenced by the manufacturing and oil companies. While the bankers and finance people control what gets pushed by the democrats.
But, fake grassroots groups is a common tactic of corporate interests on both sides.
A lot of "Americans for X" Where X is a nice sounding thing against a really niche position are really common. most of those are fronts for allowing corporate interests to directly stall political or economic moves they dislike. There are a couple groups like that which sue whenever someone tries to build affordable housing in some states. Or open new transit lines or stations.
Most real grassroots movements actually suggest a solution, having a book at the center of it, or care about multiple closely related issues and have a road map rather than just sueing/campaigning/lobbying about a single tiny thing.
@@Urbanometry You can put me into the "distrust" category. Yet I am a recumbent cyclist who rides hundreds of kms every month. Trains come second. I only own an old car basically as a hobby. So big oil or big car are non-factors for me.
@Conservitarian 17 And yet pedestrian infrastructure is usually an afterthought in most cities. With parking minimums, tiny sidewalks that end randomly, massive cars zooming past you as you walk down a vast stroad and so on. Not to mention the constant hate for separated bike lanes. But somehow, you ignore all that and think, “Oh no! Less space for my car. Must be a top-down authoritarian control scheme.” People are pushing their governments to make cities more accessible, not the other way around. To paint it any other way is willful ignorance at best.
It wasn't until talking to someone who was against 15 minute cities that I realised they think it's about getting rid of cars as opposed to just decreasing the need for a car.
They are being deliberately fed disinformation and people are believing it.
You should look through comments, you'll find plenty folk supporting banning cars.
@@rexx9496what rubbish is that?
All you folk who abuse folk who are against it have no arguments for it so you just make stuff up, you should be embarrassed.
There are genuine arguments against it but you are not smart enough to argue back so you insult them.
Decreasing the need for a car, how? I've genuinely not seen one argument put forward that would reduce the need for a car
Having a 15 minute city won't make the weather better, won't give me more time, won't make my shopping lighter, literally makes everything harder for me and more costly.
I've genuinely yet to hear a valid argument for it, closer shops isn't a reason enough to destroy so many lives and risk so many people safety.
@@elliotwilliams7421 have you ever traveled outside the USA?
I think a lot of resistance also comes from people in suburbs with access to less choice and fewer amenities, who are used to driving to the city for greater access. 15 minute city plans often start in larger cities, reducing access to those amenities for suburbanites, as such plans favour the actual city residents. City residents and businesses do get a significant boon where car access is reduced, despite claims that reduced car access would drive people away. In the end, the number of customers brought in with car access is so insignificant that they are completely overshadowed by the number of people who congregate in walkable neighborhoods.
When suburbs want to implement 15 minute city measures, residents often cite 3 fears as they protest against them: reduced home value with the introduction of more housing units in their area, increased car traffic in residential neighborhoods with increased density and mixed use, and increased noise with mixed use.
In reality, 15 minute neighborhoods are more desirable, bringing UP the value of the land. Amenities in their area are meant to be walked or biked to, meaning that their neighborhoods are not going to see an increase in car traffic from the outside. They will even see a decrease in local car traffic. Finally, mixed commercial use does not mean lots of noise from raucous bar goers in the middle of the night, as such amenities are generally only allowed in commercial areas. Local amenities are quiet and don't operate late anyway.
They should just build large multi-storie park and ride areas so the suburbanites can drive their cars there, get off and walk to a nearby subway train or bus stop or just walk around the area and when they are done, just go back to the park and ride, get back in their cars and drive back home!
In my particular metro area, I have found that a lot of suburbanites have actually started liking a lot of those sorts of ideas locally but dislike it when bigger commuting centers go for it.
Although, generally they prefer to do it in an upscale way that is kind of gentrified though. Which is sort of sad. At least it is a partial implementation though I think it is a side effect of having multiple city hubs though. It effectively has 4-5 major hubs instead of just one. And each big hub has good rail lines between them. So any suburb on the rail line is naturally becoming denser and a better place to live to a degree.
2:09 as someone who grew up in a military family, if moving is really an issue to you then just get over yourself. I have 0 sympathy for people who complain about moving.
The main talking point of the 15-minute-city conspiracy theory seems to be that it's all just a plot to keep people in their homes, and, speaking as someone who grew up in a very rural area, not near a city or town of any kind, I can only laugh at that. The only way I was able to do anything or have a life of any kind outside of school was if my parents were gracious enough to drive me to places, and that only ever happened when they felt like it, which of course was never. You want to talk about being isolated and never being able to leave your home? I lived it. For 18 years, I lived it. You don't keep people boxed in by bringing their workplaces and social spaces and amenities closer to them; you do it by making them far apart and making the people all car-dependent. That's how you get people to never leave their homes, at the very least, that's how you get their kids to never leave.
You have backwards logic. If places of goods that you need are far away. You are compelled to travel to that place to get them but if things are right near you are not compelled to travel. This would be fine if it was just bringing necessities closer to people but the restrictions that are planned and mass surveillance is concerning. You should read 1984 to get a feel of what's going on.
@@asandax6 lmao completely missing the point. Cagers are so infected by carbrain insanity they assume that having a car is as natural as breathing when it's not.
The concept of the self-sustained, 15 minute city was part of Walt Disney's original vision of EPCOT. Everything - whether it was work, play, shopping or other amenities - was either walking distance or a People Mover away.
Cars & trucks would still be able to go in & out of the city, just underneath. Never on the same level as pedestrians & people movers.
The problem with the original EPCOT plan was that you wouldn't really own anything but the clothes on your back and the sheets on your bed. Disney would own all the buildings and the units within them. You'd rent your home and have the appliances, furniture, and amenities that their corporate sponsors provided to you, because you'd basically be a mere cog in a gigantic consumer testing machine. It's funny how people always forget to mention that part of Walt's vision!
Walt Disney is cabal.
@@colormedubious4747 Yeah, I am not really Disney fan either. Having everything moving to renting only is a concern I have. However, if increasing density is paired with deregulation. It should naturally provide more opportunities for ownership not less. It is only when people are coerced that the danger is really severe.
Same with Victor Gruen and his vision of what malls should’ve been.
@@beanpasteposts - True.
Modern people are slowly losing their social skills. Besides their very small and closes social circles it’s much easier for modern people to insult or criticize other people (online or at the street) than getting to know other people and have a good relationship with them.
The 'confusion' around 15 minute cities is intentional. For something posing as a news source to misinterpret a fairly simple concept so drastically just doesn't happen by accident. The clips at the start of the video are intentionally lying and whipping up outrage to promote an agenda, generally the continued uninterrupted sale of cars and fuel.
I live in a 3,000 population town that's a mile wide
Takes me 12 minutes to get to Walmart.
Leave my house and get by in 30 minutes, that's half the time that most people I know that DRIVE.
Thank God , I live 15 miles from a town of 15.000 . I have cattle, chickens , greenhouse , fish pond , on 16 acres ,with no government telling me how they want me to live.
What about when we all got locked down during Covid19, and we were only allowed to travel 5 kilometres from your residence, and got fined if you left your residence more than once a week ? ( I'm Australian)
And I guess it’s time for delivery service
It was the same in Germany for me. Just wait for climate lockdowns, and we'll be in the same boat. I like in my city that I have the option to walk everywhere with ease or to take public transit. But lockdowns really made me contemplate buying a car.
You will own nothing and like it.
@@evillink1 You will be happy 😆
You've made a false equivalence. They didn't need a 15-minute city to lock you down, that was done for a pandemic. We can argue over the necessity and ethics over that and you would have a number of decent points. But this is just about providing us with a shorter commute and a more vibrant community. We are already controlled by urban planning (or lackthereof) by property developers who have no interest in creating functional amenities, interesting neighbourhoods or accessibility for those who do not or cannot drive a car. It's currently all about the profit motive. Looking to countries like Sweden which already implement 15 cities in their urban design - and you will note, never locked down during the pandemic - have far more pleasant urban environments where people who want a car can have one, but most choose not because its cheaper, healthier and more accessible to use their reliable, clean and frequent public transport options, bike lanes or just walk. Life improves when you're not stuck in your car getting from A to B all the time. Imagine a city without choking traffic, paying through your teeth for hideous car parking which destroys the soul of urban environments, and having a leisurely stroll instead multiple times a day.
Remember that a "15 minute city" is only such of it applies to everyone. If you think that you live in a 15-minute neighborhood, but the baristas and janitors have to travel 30 minutes to get to work, then you live in a theme park.
Great analysis! It is unfortunate how quickly this became a conspiracy. I live in a walkable community. I DRIVE 10 minutes to work and when I come back I have the ability to walk/bike to the park, go to city hall events and finish the night at a pub, being able to be more sociable than when I lived in a suburb.
Why do you drive 10 minutes to work? In my 40's I went from bicycle commuting to driving 20 minutes to work. I started gaining weight. After a few years of that, I went back to bicycle commuting. It takes me 30-35 minutes to bicycle commute, so for an extra 25 minutes a day commuting, I get over an hour of exercise. The added weight is gone, and I'm not polluting the air with large amounts of CO2 and tire dust.
@@blubaughmr Maybe it's not as safe for them to bike to work as it is to bike to the other places.
@@blubaughmr unfortunately because while I live in a walkable area, my office is on the other side of the freeway. I live in California with strict zoning laws. The moment they start working on a bike path, I am only using my bike!
@Yolashillinia it's certainly not safe where I live. I may be 6 minutes from the school I work, but the crime is a safety issue.
The thing is, taking this concept to the extreme, you'll get a gradual transition to a situation somewhat like in North Korea: Via the presence or absence of public transit connection to any given location, the government controls where and when anyone and everyone can go and where not, and when and where anyone can leave or not.
Or China with their Granny - Networks in every neighborhood which reports any unapproved activity to the authorities. That's how they enforced their one child policy.
Great idea for the people who actually want to live in an urban environment. I sure as heck don't. I'm thankful with my 5+ acres and house, trees around the perimeter of my land for privacy and my 10 minute walk to get the mail on the daily. I get quiet dark nights, fresh air, the sounds and smells of nature and a crisp breeze through the house without fear of neighbors peeping in.
I'll be honest. While I don't like the idea of living like that full-time, I sure do appreciate visiting my cousins who have the same type of house and land. It's relaxing and peaceful and a great way to unwind. I hope with the 15-minute city idea, I can get a piece of the nature aspect without the “inconvenience,” as I see it, of living so far away from my job and the things I need. Not everyone considers a commute inconvenient, so I put it in quotes, as my grandma used to say, different strokes for different folks. I think rural areas and small towns should be left out of the 15-minute city debate as that's a way of life that works for the people who moved there. But I think in cities, the norm of car dependency holds us back from big parks and walkable neighbourhoods and keeps us in the “concrete jungle” vibe.
Then you should be campaigning for it too. It prevents urban sprawl defeating the peace.
The whole kerfuffle, as always, is about power.
There is a significant segment of society that regards any change as a threat to their power. They believe that if thing change they will lose all of their power…and that others will have power over them. Others they don't believe should have any power at all. Including the power to live.
Personally I think they should be ignored. People whose only motivation is power are the ones least equipped to possess it.
I'm a middle class retiree, and I can guarantee you that I have no power to lose, and I still mistrust this shit.
@@michaelphillips2079 I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, it's because you're clueless. 15 minute cities are a LAND USE POLICY and nothing beyond that
@@blitzn00dle50 Land use should be the exclusive domain of landowners, as non-landowners have a say in government, government should have no say in the use of land as non-landowners should have no say in the use of land. Let the landowners determine the best use of their land.
@@costakeith9048 if that was the case, a 15 minute city would be the natural result because it just makes more fucking sense for lack of a better term. think about this, if you want to put a grocery store somewhere, what better place than where all of your customers live? you can't do that because of zoning regulations. I'm not even going to engage with the asininity of relying on "landowners" to choose out of the goodness of their hearts to do things that make any fucking sense, it just happens that profit oriented decision making and problem solving oriented decision making both arrive at the same conclusion on 15 minute cities
The greatest freedom I have ever known was giving up my car. Haven't driven since 1996 and don't miss it a wink.
Well done, please continue. I didn't realize there were so many negative ideas around this. I can understand though if the 15-min city is pitched purely as a climate change issue. I never address it as such when I talk or think about it. It's about quality of life and reviving cities and turning them back into true economic strongholds while making them a place people want to be.
And how difficult will they make our lives if we don't agree to move there?
@@wesleylawrence6439 very good point. i want to know too.
@@wesleylawrence6439 I don't know, ask dutch people.
@@wesleylawrence6439 Lots of European cities already meet the 15-minute city idea in many areas. So this is mostly applied to North American and other Car Centric cities. Have you ever tried getting around a typical North American City without a car? It is often exceedingly difficult.
There are still plenty of suburbs and car dependent places in Europe. The idea here is that not everyone WANTS to live a car centered life. I loved being able to comfortably and safely walk to the grocery store, or restaurants when I lived in a walkable city. For the last three years in Baton Rouge, LA I have walked to the store ONCE, because there is no sidewalk, its next to a 4-lane road with cars at 45mph and there is not even a gutter bike lane. I do not want to live in a place like that for then next 50 years of my life. (moving this week as a matter of fact!)
@@seantroy3172 I do both but what happens when the temperature are to hot to walk or ride bike. I walk to work but if the weather going to get passed 112f were going to have a lot people having heat strokes. And electric scooter don't work well in the rain or sun trust me I had to get them out of rain and battery died. And I don't trust electric vehicles. Are grid can't even handle internet in people houses. And are family likes movings even l like working to work sometimes but not always it can be to hot or to cold.
15-minute city? You mean: every city in the world except North-America..... (with some having more success than others, ofcourse).
Montreal's an excellent example of this. There are a huge number of walkable neighbourhoods in the city core, with the Montréal Métro helping out with longer distance travel.
But as soon as you reach the suburbs, especially off of Montreal Island, it's game over. Best that it be navigated with a car.
Not true. Even in London in the UK more than half of people have to walk 10 minutes just to the nearest bus stop, to then wait for a bus and then travel slowly to a supermarket. In other cities it's most people.
@@Milnoc
And even on-island especially if you go to West Island or RDP-PAT.
I grew up in Houston and IT SHOULDN'T BE A ROADTRIP JUST TO LEAVE TOWN!!
to leave town? it feels like a roadtrip sometimes going to heb
What most city planning/walkable city/efficient public transit advocates don't address is that these concepts are only good ideas for a high trust - low crime society. In a society with low trust - high crime 15 minute cities are dystopian anarcho-tyranny hellscapes. This is a fundamental reason why suburbs exist in the first place, because middle class people want to get away from crime.
That sounds like reverse integration. Maybe that's a reason the US suffers such high crime rates?
Partially. That isn't the only reason. Although, in many ways wanting to be away from crime is also just wanting the middle class to be segregated from poor people. Or in the olden days from people who weren't white.
In many cases, they want to own a house and the cheap option is a semi-rural area and they can't afford to be closer. Since they don't want to live in an apartment and don't see another option for ownership as part of the lower middle class. Which is understandable. I don't mind living in an apartment for a little while. But there are a lot of downsides to that life. And if I was in a stable position with kids I would probably prefer not to live in one if I could afford to. Most of those issues are related to stability. As it can often be difficult to predict a rent hike. And you can often be evicted for flimsy reasons. And finding a new apartment if you do get evicted or even just want to move can often have a long wait period. In addition there are also often a lot of rules about what you can do in your home too. For me personally, those aspects would outweigh walkability long term.
But my ideal place to live is either in an actual small town. Or a town-home or rowhouse that is near a rail station but not actually in the city center.
Looking forward actual suburbs don't make much sense to me. And I personally don't ever expect to be in a position where I could actually buy a suburban house for a long time. I could maybe buy a semi-rural one. But "semi-rural" living is kind of garbage in my view. It is like the worst elements of country and city living combined. Living in an actual small town where I wouldn't have to commute is a lot better. The only good form of semi rural is like large town/small city living. The places where you can be a 5-10 minute drive(or maybe 15-45 minute walk) from "downtown" and get most of your needs there with an occasional monthly or seasonal trip to "The big city" And where you can get an acre or more with a house for the same kind of cost as a suburban house on the low end.(150-300k ish) Or if you don't care about having a little land you can get a house on a tiny plot in decent condition the town proper for $100k or maybe less. And then basically be in 5-15 minute walking distance of the local stuff. Although, you might need a single car for city trips. Although, you could probably be fine with car pooling with a neighbor. The only really issue with places like that is getting non-farming jobs that are decent. Education jobs are pretty good there. In some you get some industry. Although, if you can get a remote job they are great places to live.
My grandparents live in a town like that and I used to spend summers living with them and they tend to be great places to live. I was able to walk everywhere. People were friendly and knew each other. The local dinner and such were great. As well as the local general store owner. The only time they get bad is if a nearby store gets a Walmart and they get flooded with family dollars. Although, they still aren't terrible then. It just means that the job market shrivels a bit except on the low end.
Crime is commonly given as a reason for opposing transit and such though.
Poor city areas do tend to have more crime. But, poor suburbs can often have just as much if not more in some cities.What I mean by that are suburbs that have a mix of apartments and rental homes in meh condition that are generally only 1-2 stories and only have highway access. You basically get all the disadvantages of a suburb. While also being poor, having crime, and not having opportunities to really own homes and having to rent.
In many places the actual old downtown areas are gentrified because people want to live there and the poor people are forced out. Those areas are just as low crime as the suburbs. But, most middle class people can't afford to live there unless they are upper middle class or are willing to rent a luxury apartment.
I find it weird you claim they are anarchy-tyrannical though. I guess that if you have a super high crime 15 minute city controlled by gangs or something it might be a lot less nice to live in.
I think it would still work in medium trust societies and areas.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 From my experience middle class people have enormous empathy, not contempt, for the poor. Regardless of whether they be white or non-white. In fact middle class white people go above and beyond to try and help non-whites especially. I believe your assumption that poverty causes crime is backwards, crime and the failure of the criminal justice system to punish and deter criminals is what keeps people suffering in poverty where they would otherwise start to build wealth. There are a lot of people who are poor who are good people, very morally upstanding individuals, who deserve to live protected under a fair and balanced criminal justice system. But who unfortunately live in a society that confuses criminality as the natural consequence of poverty instead of the reverse.
@@larsjeger4346 I think you misunderstood me a little.
But there is quite a bit of empathy. It does depend upon which portion of the middle class you look at though.
I do think a lot of poverty is caused by crime. Particularly the war on drugs. But that is a different issue.
To a certain extent I think it does but only when poverty is severe and there is little hope, If you are starving then the natural inclination is to steal.
If even the poor have a certain basic standard of living then that should reduce crime by a bit. Although, a certain amount is always inevitable. The rich and middle class commit plenty of crimes as well. They are generally different crimes though.
But, that there is even a societal connection between poverty and crime has the potential to gum up some elements. Even if all poverty was caused by crime and no poverty caused crime.
I think your post was an important reminder and appreciate it
A 15 minute city just means having things near you without needing a car to get there. We already have many 15 minute cities, some are safe and some are not. I'm sure Upper eastside Manhattan is a safe 15 minute city, while Queens is an unsafe one.
I like 15 minute cities... I just don't like the Goverments in control of 15 minute cities
Governments are already in control of cities through zoning, and that's why cities look the way they do. All we want, is for them to relax their control so people can choose what they want to build on their own property.
Some countries deciding to put distant limits during COVID really fueled this conspiracy. They had to make exceptions for those limits if basics weren't available in a particular circle so if the government puts more things local, next pandemic, or even widescale protests, the government confine people much more.
I won't be surprised when confinement in "your home sector" is mandated at some point for those who aren't up to date on their jabberinos and vaxeroonies.
America is truly bizzare. Here in South asia (am from india) if you try to build suburbs you would called crazy
Unfortunately I do see an increase in demand for gated communities, at least in the urban-elite spaces, especially places like Delhi and Chennai.
@@SandeepPNair may be west influence may be they want to feel civilized
@@SandeepPNair it's often not a typical low density suburb but more high density condos although they still are very unwalkable and far from anything else.
But notice the walled neighborhoods in south Asia that are filled with the wealthy-- they have suburbs. Go to any place on the planet, suburbs exist. The difference is in America, suburbs are not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class. America is bizarre, though. It is unique in the world.
And the worst part is, I don't know if there's a way out of this car dependency, besides just moving to an already walkable city like New York. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of political party or political ideology, are so addicted to cars that they literally can't envision any other way to live. Seriously, you go to Los Angeles, and you will see hippy college liberals spewing the exact same rhetoric regarding cars as boomers in small towns.
I don't drive, and it would be wonderful to live in a 15-minute city. Not only would it cut down on gasoline costs and emissions, but it would also provide a better designed city to live in. People will still travel, so it won't stop anyone from using their car if they wish to. But for those, like me who are home bound simply because they are so far away from everything, it would be a dream come true.
Move house, move closer, these place already exist. Stop taking people's choices from them
Great video, I used to live a five minute walk from the grocery store, I shopped for food every other day and things were fresh and shit, I forgot about that, I live in giant suburb, and shop for the week
"what has everyone so angry" so you explained the 15 min city concept, fine. I don't seem to recall you saying much of anything about what has everyone so angry.... so, what about it?
Right wing nuts think they will somehow be confined to their 15-minute neighborhood. This is, of course, ridiculous. A 15-minute neighborhood doesn’t confine anyone. Residents are free to go wherever they want whenever they want. The right wing pundits know this, but they rant like lunatics anyway because they make money scaring their followers.
because if he had discussed the genuine concerns of people have about these dystopian nightmares, it would have destroyed the narrative.
@@garywest9442 The poster is just gaslighting everybody
@@garywest9442 what genuine concerns? Being trapped in a 15 minute city and being restricted? That's not a genuine concern. That's bs propaganda. Nothing about those concerns is merited because it's all based off of a lie.
None of your fears for these cities are merited because there is no basis in reality for your fears.
@@garywest9442 A genuine concern doesn't have to be a valid one. And the pundits feeding impressionable people these conspiracy theories are hardly genuine either.
I really don't understand why people think of cars as the epitome of freedom. Yes they allow you to get around independently, but they're expensive, loud, take up enormous amounts of precious space and wherever you go you have to make sure you find a parking lot and are actually capable of driving when coming back (basically forcing you to abstain from alcohol if you don't wanna become a menace to society and yourself)
Never again would have to worry about:
"My bus was late"
Or
"My car broke down".
Yea how terrible a walkable city must be.
Or having friends close by oh no guys.
Urban density means your neighbors can be a constant annoyance, you have no escape when crime and homelessness increase or you have to deal with menacing people on the subway. If you live in a dense city you are at the mercy of landlords, government agencies and police who either cannot or will not be responsive to the population's needs. The best way to get cars off the roads is to have more people work remotely and not allow more big businesses into expensive, overcrowded areas. If more companies were located near small towns, people could have a short commute if they can't work from home. Part of the town could be walkable, but people will prefer the greater selection and lower prices of huge stores.
Small towns are nearly as good for achieving the ideal as denser areas. I expect them to grow in the future. A lot of them are too small for your regular needs though.
But, if it is in the sweet spot where you get most basic stuff like groceries and they have decent schools up to the high-school level that helps a lot. The only big issue is that getting starting in the job market there can be hard. Also sometimes healthcare isn't very available. But getting a local doc or clinic at least is feasible.
Three years of living in a 15 minute city, and I'm doing great.
I live in a suburban area that started out as a tramway suburb in early 20th century. The city initially had little zoning regulation, and many people had home business and there were many small shops and businesses scattered among the homes. Then in the 1950s, new zoning regulations were brought in by the city, mandating single-detached homes, and all of the small shops, general stores and home businesses had to close down. The tramway was ripped out and a new "commercial" zoned area was created along a local regional highway, where big-box chains opened up. Most people do not realize how the layout of our hyper-segregated-by-function low-density suburban sprawl is mandated by zoning regulations. A first step toward the 15-minute city would simply be to liberalize zoning regulations, to allow people to return to the mixed-use medium density urbanism that comes naturally when people are free.
The conspiracy theory got started because a few years ago a British city (I think it was Oxford, I`m not sure) decided to implement the 15-minute city using compulsion. They restricted the mobility of motor vehicles using permits, fines and regulation. This misguided, totalitarian, authoritarian approach to the 15-minute city has spurred all of the conspiracy theories.
This is a very valid point! Many neighbourhoods in Canada & US started walkable and were bulldozed for the car. Making streets wider, putting in parking lots, and, unfortunately, forcing many businesses to close. One of the major culprits of this has to be parking minimums, which I may do a video about in the future to show just how destructive they’ve been.
As for the Oxford plan, it does seem a bit intense. But considering it only affects personal cars, while motorcycles, delivery trucks, bikes, public transit and walking are all unaffected, I’m interested to see how it will affect the community. With most people only making grocery trips outside their 15-minute city once a week or less, that’s more than enough days not to affect the average citizen. It’s far less restrictive than the nationwide policy that Japan and some other countries have. In any case, not building cities specifically for the car as the priority number one transport seems like a good thing.
Your mischaracterisation of the Oxford traffic control system is a conspiracy theory
I don't have facilities to walk to in 15 minutes.
Yes, thats the god damn problem.
Same. 15 minutes walk for me contains... a post box which isn't emptied every day, a bus stop with 8 buses a day and a railway station which will be closing in 18 months time. No shops, no dentists, no doctor's surgery, no hairdressers. My problem with this 15 minute plan is I don't believe they'll put the services in place before removing my ability to get to the ones which exist further away.
just build the facilities then😭😭
@@katielucas3178 why, does the us have a bad history of not reallt urbanizing cities?
@@katielucas3178 I think 15 minutes gets me to at most a daycare and a Pentacostal church. Oh, and houses.
@@katielucas3178 From what i'm aware, most efforts being labelled as "15 minute cities" are within dense urban cores. Lack of density is an issue urbanists are trying to solve, nobody wants to just plop shit down knowing that it wont work. Improving density in places that could potentially support it is a huge part of the goal, but there are so many places that will always stay the way they are, and that's completely ok. Low density is best served by cars, but it doesn't mean we should design an entire country in such a way. In the us you'll see dense cities which are heavily car-centric, those are issue at hand right now.
I love when I'm walking home from work and notice I'm moving faster than the rush hour traffic.
Lockdown zones are what "conspiracy theorists", if that's what you insist on calling them, is what many consider 15 minute cities to be!
The term is tainted by the Oxford "experiment" which is definitely NOT just a way to create a walkable city centre or even suburban neighborhood. Oxford council have jumped at the opportunity to put basically "paywalls" to movement via motor vehicle which will effectively restrict movement via fines & tolls. Despite the council statements, the reality is restriction and an obvious attempt to revenue collect!
15 minute city advocates should change the description, "walkable neighborhoods" or something similar maybe.
Most Americans like having their "own space" and their "own things". I have never wanted to live in a large city. I barely like to visit large cities. To most Americans the driving a car represented a sense of freedom, you could go where you want to go when you want to go. Comparing a car to a prison would be the same as waiting for the bus, you are confined to a set location until mechanical movement can be achieved. Now if an urban center was laid out in such a way that one could centrally park and then use a public transport system to accomplish whatever they wanted to do and then return to their vehicle to go home that would work well and it does an example is Disney World. You park in a large parking area, numerous "public" transit options are available to take you to and from the park. You do whatever you want while in the park, you chose a "public" transit option back to your car and go home. Would I want to be "solely" reliant on a public transit option for most of my daily needs? Nope.
I like the idea of a sole place to park outside of the downtown core and then walking, cycling or public transit everywhere else. It would reduce traffic as many cars in the core usually drive around looking for parking, causing traffic. As for not wanting to live in the city, it's not for everyone, and I get that. We should and, in most cases, do have a balance between the two. That should remain.
A very poetic opinion piece that completely fails to explain "What has everyone so Angry?"
For this video, I was mainly working around the fact that people are angry that this will result in banning cars, locking people in their districts and forcing people to move when they get new jobs. But, I didn’t cover much beyond that. In the future, I intend to revisit this idea and point by point around other topics people are mad at, including covering who fuels these arguments.
Guess the short answer is just "lobby"
People weren't upset at the prospect of mixed use buildings and spaces or introducing more walkable spaces. People were upset at the idea of adding surveillance across sectors and adding limits regarding the amount of travel that a person can do. If you want people to live in 15 minute cities, do the urban planning, build the infrastructure, and people will naturally want to live that way. You won't need to enforce limitations to keep people from leaving.
The Oxford plan was about restricting car traffic, not imprisoning people. Yet the right wing conspiracy machine wants you to think that cars=people.
This is a topic the obvious liberals in the comment section don’t want to have. The concept is derived from the WEF who have the worst kinds of people in charge. All the surveillance systems are also coming from China, who life tested on the Uhygers. The objective is to rollout a Social Credit System tied to Carbon Credits ans digitized currency that can be georestricted to a specific location and even locked out to prevent movements, as is the case in China.
Maybe thats why that isn't the idea? Stop arguing a strawman lmao
And by the way, since it is currently illegal to build 15-minute cities, the argument "well if people want it then they should build it!" is meaningless.
@@cherriberri8373 Illegal to build 15 minute cities...what are you talking about? There are mixed used urban environments all over. If you're talking about getting strict zoning laws overturned in order to allow for mixed use development...the people arguing against that aren't conspiracy theorists, they're NIMBYs trying to preserve property values.
And yes, in the UK, there were propositions paired with 15 minute minute cities specifically regarding adding penalties for travel outside of your local sector above a certain allotted amount.
Nobody advocating for these 15 minute walkable cities is advocating for mass surveillance. Where are you getting this from?
Also, nobody is advocating for restrictions forcing people to stay in the city. The only restrictions people advocate for are car restrictions in SOME areas so that those few places can be safe for pedestrians only.
You're already being watched 24/7 with your phone lol. You have no privacy in this era to begin with.
Urbanites are tone deaf, as seen in this post.
Most cities in the U.S. are not safe. So, letting your kids ride bikes in the neighborhood is a really bad idea.
Big city govetnment and bureaucracy hold its citizens in contempt, so freedom is restricted not enhanced regardless of walkability or lack thereof.
Cramming populations into little box-like spaces means that most will be renters forever.
Housing, groceries, transportation and taxes drain household incomes more than in suburban and rural areas.
Most cities in the U.S. have been losing population for years.
Those are important concerns. Although, not all neighborhoods are that unsafe crime and otherwise. The biggest danger to biking to school is getting hit by a car.
There is a risk that this gets implemented in a way that only leaves renting as an option. So it is important that we consider how it is done to avoid that. It isn't a necessary part of achieving the ideal.
To avoid the "Big city government" problem. I personally prefer to increase the density of the largest suburbs and then connect them to main city by train so you have a more local government you can effect easier. But, you still get the benefits.
I am not sure if household incomes are drained more in cities. I would expect transportation to be less. And if the rent then housing would cost more likely.
Suburban areas are still part of cities even if they usually aren't walkable. I think most of the idea can still work with suburbs if they have good train access and walkability. Although, there are some people who want to dismantle the suburbs completely.
15 minute cities structure is great, just do not try to ban my freedom to own a car
Almost all cities in India despite being messy are practically 15 minute cities more or less. Where residential apartments are built, essential businesses starts flocking around it. While, some reasonable , well enforced zoning is necessary, but strict zoning like in the US and Canada is counterproductive and reflective of a big tyrannical government. As a soft libertarian, I support the concept of 15 Minute citues.
You need to debunk the hatred rather than try to explain why its better. This does nothing for those arguing that governments are creating lock in zones.
I never understood this lock in nonsense. What would be stopping them from doing the same to the suburbs? Throw up roadblocks on any arterial stroad and those people can't get anywhere either. How are they supposed to drive 20 minutes away to Walmart then?
I frame it as the return of the neighborhood corner store, cafes and pubs. My neighborhood isn't considered walkable, but i can walk to a large park and recreation facility, my library can be walked to, i have a convince store where I can walk to on a hot day and not have my icecream melt on the way back. Theoretically i could walk to a grocery store, but its across a busy six lane road
I walk across a busy six lane road every day
A.k.a. a stroad. Extremely dangerous. Best that it be avoided. Cars fly off of those things at random times right into strip mall stores!
Great video, subscribed! :) I appreciate your more informative style and friendly tone of voice. While I love the snark of Not Just Bikes and City Nerd, it's nice to have creators with a different mindset in how to present these ideas to folks.
Re. the video topic -- very weird times to live in, I wouldn't have thought the conspiracy theories would come into this space. I've been hearing in the news about local city planners and other municipal officials being totally baffled by the hate and threats they're getting when it was only the town NIMBYs they had to deal with before lol.
Thank you! I'm hoping with this channel I can help educate people on urban planning without seeming polarizing. My ideal world is someone who is totally against 15-minute cities or other topics I cover, finds these videos and becomes a little less radicalized against and a little more informed.
I feel bad for the city planners who are suddenly being hammered with phone calls and emails from outraged citizens when typically, they have a job most people don't even think about.
I believe in always being stocked up with a couple of weeks supply of groceries regardless of distance from the store. Tornadic storms and hurricanes sometimes cut power to where I live. Also, the Pandemic showed us that being stocked up was important. Particularly, when certain cities prevented people from leaving their homes, or when the grocery stores ended up with bare shelves due to panic buying. Although, it never occurred to us to include toilet paper as part of being stocked up. Now we know better and make sure that we have plenty of that on hand, too.
The video assumed everyone who stocks up groceries at home are mostly buying perishables which go bad and are tossed. It can happen but most people aren't like that.
@@jlrva3864 Generally if you want to stock up then buying less perishable things make sense.
I keep a stock of staples and canned food in case something like that happens.
If you cook a lot then getting fresh vegetables weekly makes a lot of sense. But, if you are going to drive someplace for just veggies then getting them from a CSA works just as well generally.
It is overbuying of perishables that has a larger impact.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 True. A lot of the fruits and vegetables that we buy are frozen. We found that we ended up wasting much of the fresh fruits and vegetables. My husband will sometimes make jerky out of some of the meat that he buys if he thinks that he won't be able to use it all before it goes bad.
@@laurie7689 I personally like fresh veggies quite a bit, But that is mainly since I like cooking. I usually go for batch cooked meals which are simple and save a bunch of time and are cheap though.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 Whereas I hate cooking mostly because of all the preparation that it requires to get a decent meal. I eat a lot of frozen dinners and canned soups when I don't feel like doing any cooking or eating out. My husband and I don't like the same kinds of foods. He's a Southern country boy that likes to eat everything fried and I prefer more varied foods than that. We tend to make our own meals separately. Have been doing that for decades now. Our daughter had an unusual upbringing in that she got to pick which meal she wanted to eat from.
The concept of a 15 minute city is well and good, but Oxford City Council already has plans to issue fines to those who drive from zone to zone within their own city, which is ridiculous
I will not eat ze bugs, I will not live in ze pod. Rural forever.
@DoubleYouSeeNah You show about the same level of awareness as the Video creator. Somehow rural people aren't spending all of their free time driving to grocery stores and can manage to acquire internet access.
Great well I'd like to see your solution to rural living if we dissolve cities. Where does everyone go? How do they get around? Where do they work?
@@melburnian I didn't say I would dissolve cities lol. They are good storage for undesirables.
What is the obsession with bugs from anti-urbanists? The same people saying this nonsense will then go eat shrimp, crabs, lobster and crayfish and they are just giant bugs that live in the water.
People are angry about it because every urban planning TH-camr is lying about it. Cities like Oxford are literally tracking your every move by tracking your license plate and sending you a fine if you leave your district for more than 100 days a year, yet TH-camrs like Not Just Bikes claim that it's just a "toll system", which is a blatant lie.
That’s not a 15 minute city issue. That’s congestion taxing or user pays tolling.
Just because one place chooses to put two things together doesn’t mean that the concepts are in any way linked.
What video did Not Just Bikes claim that? I didn't see any videos addressing Oxford. Although, maybe I missed it and couldn't find it or it was an offhand comment in a video on a different topic.
Every Urban Planning TH-camr lying about it is a strong claim.
I am not surprised that UK went for a spooky toll and control system for going out of your neighborhood. fines for leaving more than 100 days a year are just terrible.
I don't think that is the only form urban reform has to take. Although, if it is in that form it should be opposed. Opposing transit, bike lanes, zoning reform, and other sensible measures to make to free a lot of people from having to commute by car.
@@chrisduffy2866 They may not be linked, but one thing is the lube that will make the other thing slide in easier.
@@chrisduffy2866 It is still a money and data grab. Restricting the right to move is a major no-no to Americans, which is why there is a fundamental fear of it. If you can not pick your neighbor, something has gone wrong.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 My thought exactly... I don't remember NJB talking about this. I watch him, CityNerd, CityBeautiful, etc. and I hadn't heard of the Oxford system (which I'm definitely going to check out). I am just starting to hear the backlash of this concept and wonder if it's more exaggerated in circles that I don't run in.
I am all for this, so long as it is kept limited to cities/urban/metropolitan areas. Suburban and rural people don't want it and shouldn't have it forced on them. I personally think it's great that we can have several types of living environment, and each one can optimize in their own way.
For suburban areas, I'd love to see a form of this by allowing small, garage based businesses. Maybe 1 neighbor has a small, garage bar that only seats 10 people and is set up to attract neighbors specifically from that development... And the other neighbor has a small restaurant in their garage offering a few seats and take-out.
Those are some really great ideas! I think limiting suburban environments to only housing and with no home-grown businesses is ultimately a bad thing. When I was a kid in a suburban neighbourhood, I went to a house up the street to get my hair cut (she had a studio in her living room) and a house around the block to buy and fix my bike (they had a great setup in their basement). It was only later in life I realized these were both businesses and not just family and friends. Although my parents were very friendly with them and I became friends with their kids. Ultimately I believe every city or suburban neighbourhood should figure out what works best for them instead of forcing a cookie-cutter approach on everyone. The only idea I preach is less reliance on driving to do everything and the freedom to choose how you want to do things. I think being forced to drive my car for everything I need is not freedom. But as you mentioned, we don't need every service near everyone. Even letting a neighbour open a small business for cutting hair is a step in the right direction.
My happiest time was the 4 years I lived on a college campus. Had everything within walking distance. Sense of community. And I didn't even own a car.
You can even have the benefits of 15 minute cities where density is low and single-family homes are prevalent.
A lot of the "middle suburbs" of Melbourne (say 10-15km from the CBD) are a great example of that. All it takes is to keep them compact in size, and ensure that there is a train station and walkable shopping strip about every 1km (which is a 10-15 minute walk). Allow some density around the station & shopping strip which is required to support the businesses & infrastructure, but then in-fill the residential streets in between with detached suburban houses. That way people are literally getting the best of both worlds. A detached suburban home in a quiet leafy street, that is within a 10-15 minute walk of shops, restaurants, parks, trains, buses, cafes, etc.
People may argue that's impossible, or you need greater density to support it, or a shopping strip & station every 1km is too close and unrealistic... Well, that very much IS the reality of the suburbs I grew up in. So it is very much possible, as long as:
- Zoning allows for shops & pockets of density about every 1km or so;
- Commercial areas are built as "Main Streets" instead of big box stores surrounded by parking lots;
- The metro area has extensive suburban rail with at least 1 station in nearly every suburb. My metro area has 222 suburban stations for a population of only 4.9 million.. So I'd suggest 1 station per 20-25k people is very realistic.
Simply do that, and those who disagree with 15 minute cities because "I don't want to live an apartment" can very easily have the best of both worlds.
Instead of building pedestrian walkways over parking lots, how about we remove that huge slab of asphalt bigger than the stores it serves
That is an excellent point. Parking minimums are a scourge on our cities. I'm going to make my next video about them.
@@Urbanometry Parking needs to be embraced for drivers transferring to Public transit. It's called a Park-and-Ride.
@@Vryheid I agree, but people shouldn't do this in the middle of the city or crowded places. People who live in the suburbs or countryside should drive to park-and-rides located outside the main city. From there, they can take buses or trains to travel into the city.
It's funny, because while the USA has minimum parking requirements, most European cities have maximum parking requirements.
f.e. if you build an apartment complex with 50 units, you are only allowed to have 40 parking spots. (not real numbers)
@@Urbanometry So I guess you are proving the point that you want to take people's choice away. "You can drive all you want, as long as it is on a road!"
This is exactly why I won't move from my walking neighborhood with its walking school.
Fun fact - it is pushed by EU in Poland, funnier fact is that to find a place not like that in Europe would be really, really hard so I dunno what EU will try to make to make improvement which already is there..
The issue are the laws being implemented in some areas designed to limit people rather than creating laws to facilitate change. The U K for example seems to be trying to build with a hammer when they need a scalpel. If 15 minute cities are to survive, they need to position themselves as a unifying idea between liberals and conservatives not limits on the number of times you can drive between city areas in a year.
"Why is everyone so angry about 15min cities?" .
The English lesson is free.
Angry insofar as it is imposed. That is the point.
So tell me something that isn't? It's not like this is the first time a government in the UK has ridden rough shot over the will of the people is it? So what is the straw to break the back of the nullified masses? At least the British stood up during the Poll Tax, but has everyone forgotten how mighty we are together?
I guess now Ant and Dec aren't doing the Takeaway, Brits will have a slot on Saturday night to spend time thinking about why it is you get screwed so much by your.governments, and councils, this no matter the t-shirt colour?
Good point. Sadly SEO wins out over perfectly readable titles in this case. I needed to have the keyword “15-minute cities” as close to the start of the title as possible to rank well in search results. However, I did try to make it grammatically correct.
@@Urbanometry this is the sum of our lives, where the popularity outweighs quality of data. I understand the need, and the video is solid regardless.
What is happening all over the world is already the world government we say we don't want. Everything we complain about is already fully in motion and the time to stop it has been missed IMO.
There have been peasant revolutions but I see little precedent in human history for this not to end violently.
Here in lies our challenge. How to stop this unelected one world economic gouging through restriction, fake narrative and incarceration, without spilling blood.
We already know the police will stomp on your face for a 5% pay rise if the government says so. Given the events of the crowing of old sausage fingers, Britain is more like the Minority report than it is a great and free democratic nation
@@Urbanometry Whoosh!!! You didn't even understand the comment.
Arent major cities already 15 minute commutes? I'm not sure what the problem is, I live 45 minutes from town in the mountains of Tennessee, so I'm not sure why people are freaking out about something that's already been in place for thousands of years, if you don't like the city than leave. If you don't wanna drive almost an hour to get to a town, then move to a city.
Getting to downtown Toronto from a few counties out in the suburbs in rush hour will add one and a half to two hours each way to your commute on public transit. It's 30 minutes on open roads outside of rush hour by car if you are...tactical. It is a frustrating situation, and nobody really trusts these "urbanist" people to be good faith actors.
All I really know about Tennessee is that it doesn't have a state income tax.
I need to start blocking these channels more often before commenting before I get arrested for hate speech.
@@williaminnes6635 what ?
@@centuriashow2124 Sad isn’t it?
Not just major cities, many old towns are still that way
The conspiracy theorists should realize that it's just as easy to keep suburbanites stuck in their neighborhoods as it would be to keep people in a 15-minute city in their zone. I grew up in the Atlanta suburbs, and I distinctly remember the winter storms that shut down the city a decade ago. The roads were frozen over, and nobody could drive anywhere because very few people in Atlanta had any sort of experience driving in those conditions. If you needed to go to the grocery store, good luck. It was probably a 30-40 minute walk in normal conditions. Until the ice cleared, people were stuck at home. That's how easy it is. When you're car dependent, all it would take is losing your ability to drive to keep you in your neighborhood. If you live in a neighborhood that has one entry/exit point (a.k.a many of them), all it would take is a simple roadblock on that single road in/out of the neighborhood to keep you from driving out.
Point here is that the supposed threat to your freedom is already there in our current suburbs, so citing it as a reason to oppose development of 15-minute cities isn't exactly a valid point. If the government really wanted to keep you in your neighborhood, they could do that with a simple roadblock. And, since it's not a 15-minute city, you wouldn't have any necessities nearby.
It's based on the believe in "bad dominance of cars" without any understanding why it happened. Many people live not in the place they'd like to live, but where their job is or where housing is not crazy expensive. If your job is in a shop nearby, you can live in 15-minute city, but in the most cases there is no good job in the place you can afford to live. That's why people have to drive "bad dominant" cars or ride something much bigger than a bike.
The "misconceptions" about 15-Minute Cities appeared because they are pushed by environmental extremists whos point is not making people's live better, but to reduce their movements "to save planet".
This problem was created by urban planning centred around the automobile. People didn't always live 40 minute drives from work. It wasn't until we started marketing luxury homes as some form of entitlement that this problem became endemic.
The problem is majority of the population within the radius of 15 minute will have high crime rate %, 20-30 % unemployment rate and poverty will be 20 - 30 %. This isn’t the future we want.
not true, high crime is caused by inequity which is the case in the US cause big corporations and people literally not having control while the government doesn't give a fuck.
i live in a high density town in the netherlands, Ede. it has very low crime and i'm able to get to the nearest grocery store on my e-bike within 7 minutes.
What makes you think that? I haven't seen any evidence that level of density leads to crime.
Now in some cases the inner city can end up with crime issues. But, in many cases the density there is significantly higher. And and area can become run-down and crime ridden even with low density.
crime is caused by inequity, at least in the US, is reagan's fault
We already have the choice of using the neighbourhood stores and services if and when we want to. Your free to walk and use the bike paths already. This 15 minute city program will limit you to 100 trips outside the zone per year. If you want 15 minute cities then make them so wonderful that you wouldn't want to leave. Everyone should have the freedom to go wherever and whenever they want.
People wouldn't be so concerned if those 15 minutes cities didn't include a system of cameras to track and record every person's movement. They managed to turn something that is foundamentally good like reducing the use of cars to a creepy, expensive and dystopian orvellian style system of people control like those terrible ULEZ in cities like london, oxford etc.. The best way to create livable cities is not to bring 1984 to reality but to remove those ridicolous zoning and parking minimums laws, and to increase public transport. And I'm telling you this while living in a little city in Tuscany where everything is not just within 15 minutes, but 5 minutes, and all of that without those dystopian restrictions. People are right to protest imho.
What tracking system are you even talking about? It's pure nonsense
@@cheeps1329 Lol look at the ulez in london, or even worse, the new traffic zones in oxford, just to mention two of them. The city has been divided into separate zones with movement restrictions between them: basically you are given some kind of "point based system" where you can enter certain zones, or move between them, only 50 or 100 times per year, and in order to implement that, an orwellian style system has been put in place: the city has been filled up with cameras that track the movement of the cars and send fines to those who dare to enter the "wrong" ones, basically locking people inside their own neighborhoods. At least open your eyes before writing comments.
@@Andrea-lj4jg
You do understand that in Oxford there is no restriction on using the ring road to travel to other zones right? You seem to have swallowed the conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker.
If you lived on a street that commuters used as a rat run, wouldn’t you want something done to prevent it? Preferably a flexible solution that didn’t apply to local residents. How is that dystopian?
@Cheeps I live in New York City. They're already setting up a system to stop people from driving downtown under the pretext of "congestion pricing" and enforcing it with cameras that capture your plate number. I'm not sure if you're gaslighting or just ignorant.
You're already being watched 24/7 through your phone. You have no privacy to begin with.
Also, there is literally nobody advocating for such surveillance in these cities so being against these cities because of "supposed" survalience is you arguing against a strawman. Listen to what we want and then make your argument before you go full strawman.
100% of the anti-walkable city comments here are strawmanning.
I live in a village with one Family Dollar, one traffic light and one gas station. The nearest grocery, pharmacy, hardware store etc. is 10 miles away. I can't imagine how it could work here.
Unfortunately, not all areas are suited for this idea, especially in rural areas. These ideas, at least how I see them, are more geared towards cities and especially suburban areas where they have the same issue with the grocery store being far away, but it's all single-family housing between them and the grocery store. On top of that no doctor or hardware store anywhere near their homes.
I've lived in a 15-minutes town most of life - still do.
but my bike just got stolen, so it's turned in to a 1 hour town.
That's not sustainable, so I need a new bike NOW!
The whole story of needing to go to groceries store, pick up kids from school after work can be reduced to
Having the school bus drop kids home, have groceries delivered to your home and jobs involving PC work can be done from home too.
my daily 4 hour commute per day has been reduced to just once a week 4 hour commute.
That is very true. There are many different ways to become less reliant on a car. Although I will mention as a kid, I was not too fond of the school bus and always preferred walking. To each their own, though.
Well done. Sub +1
(1:27) I really, really love the neighborhood doodle animation where the town gets more "treed".
(5:28) I can confirm that Uruk had zero cars and they did just fine thank you.
Always love seeing a new urban planning channel I can watch. Looking forward to more amazing content!
I am looking forward to it was well.
A channel more focused on arguments and solutions with a broad appeal could be good. This one has potential. I hope it lives up to it.
The thing about grocery-shopping is: how much of the space taken up in your grocery bags is actually packaging? Cut down on the boxed stuff, and you can fit way more groceries in less bags. I can fit about four grocery bags worth of food on my regular (non-cargo) bike, and that includes a gallon milk jug.
You said that Carlos Moreno came up with the idea of 15 minute cities? It was actually a short mustachioed man's henchmen that came up with them as part of a solution for a group of people they didn't like
Ah, yes, nothing is more scary than a walkable city. I shutter at the very implication.
It seems to me the 15 minute city is what I remember from my childhood. However the concept is being hijacked by "our masters" who really miss the power trip of the covid lockdown to keep the Plebs in their cages and only let them out when absolutely necessary. Orwell's 1984 was written as a warning, not an instruction manual. 😢
I'm in the UK, I don't have a car, but I do own my own house. What would happen to my house if I was moved into a 15 minute city. And in this country, they are talking about fines for people who leave their 15 minute area more than a set number of times. There are no factories, office blocks or anything like that, except in the city center and out of town. My job requires me to work in a different city or country every day. If I am only allowed to travel a set number of days, I would lose my job, so would millions of others.
Who is talking about these fines in the UK?
@@Diviance my local council on their consultation page
@@Diviance Wake up, or are you 77th.
@@Davidh02
Ah yes, the local council... what local council? Kind of hard to verify your claim without knowing who that is.
@@carlstewart8787
I have learned over the years that any time someone tells you to "wake up"... they are talking nonsense and they know it.
I live in suburbia. Cannot function here much without a car, especially in inclement weather. I wish I could afford to move to a city. Even the cities around here aren't developed enough to survive without a car. Biking here is kind of dangerous especially for older folks. This video and concept is excellent.
Keep your cities, I'll stay in the woods.
WOW The WEF BOTS are out in full force with THIS one....
How much is exxon paying you to scare us into clinging to our cars?
Connecting the things we need, want and enjoy to where we live. Nothing wrong with that at all. Thing is, some of us have been raised ...let's call it Rural... and don't have a lot of use for any city. We need the forests and fields. Want to see the stars at night and enjoy a 15 minute walk where we can be alone with our thoughts, uninterrupted by anything but the wind. My kids are grown and gone. My wife has passed. Your utopian city sounds to me like a slice of hell itself.
Dear Americans, it does not have to be black & white; Banning cars outright is just silly. Dutch cities, for example, allow cars but the trick is...not having to need a car!
Everything is walkable; supermarkets, hardware stores, shopping, drugstores, cafes, restaurants. There rest is done with trains or cars.
I first read about the 15 minute neighborhood in 1993 when searching for a town to call home. I discovered the New Urbanism movement and read all the books. Later went to grad school for urban design. Couldn't afford to finish that. (I'm in the USA). But I did move to a cute 15 minute town. It's so fun to run into people you know when walking around town. 😊. A healthy way to live.