its being contested because they aren't what you think they are, the look great right now but they aren't close to finished, yet, they haven't begun borders yet, and they haven't enforced the many new laws that will be coming. so many people are blindly just watching it happen with their eyes wide shut.
This conversation is very important. We should want to make towns and cities more walkable and less car dependent but also be concerned about governments and corporations forcing change upon people to suit their agenda.
The word "freedom" can be used in many senses, but when used in any conversation concerning government, I find it wise to define it in terms of its inverse relationship to government (Freedom = 1/Government). As such, the convenience, accessibility, efficiency and empowerment which civic planning may hypothetically provide can be weighed against the potential infringements on freedom. That being said, we may find, individually and collectively, that freedom can be more fully realized when we liberate ourselves from old habits.
As a Conservative who to be honest disagrees with some strong towns concepts, I follow and just hear from those who don't like the 15 minute cities. There are two realms of concerns; realistic and conspiracy. Realistic concerns include a genuine concern about losing the right to drive cars in certain areas if a person prefers that. Plans to limit or stop cars from entering certain areas is seen as a loss of freedom. You view not needing a car as freedom, they view having a car as freedom. Conspiracy concerns are much more wild. There's people who for some reason believe that people will not only be forced to move into these cities, but that they'll essentially be prisoners there and not allowed to leave. And on top of that throw in other surveillance systems that have been talked about. I personally don't have an issue with the 15 minute city. My issues is the feeling I get from at least some strong towns advocates is that everything has to be dense urban and that people who prefer suburban living and don't mind cars are bad. I personally believe that cities should have both dense, walkable neighborhoods and low density, car oriented suburban neighborhoods.
I would suggest you watch some of the videos from the Not Just Bikes channel about suburbs - the problem that has been shown statistically with suburbs ( the way they are currently built in the US and Canada) is that they are unsustainable from a tax base standpoint over the long term. Suburbs are established using bonds that eventually have to be paid off. The roads, sewage systems, electric grid, etc. cost too much to maintain as time passes. As taxes are increased to cover the maintenance costs the people living there decide to move out even further to escape the taxes that their suburban "lifestyle" caused. What can keep some suburbs going is allowing mixed-use housing, bike paths, and apartments to be interspersed among the more traditional communities. But that does mean zoning laws have to be flexible to allow businesses to be near to homes. Lot size should also be flexible. Eventually suburbs have to allow much more concentrated areas for business and living in order to exist . The problem is that when cars are the only choice for transportation it spreads out communities even more, making them less viable. What you get is concentric rings of failing suburbs after the taxes rise. When I say "failing" I mean they can no longer support the service levels that they used to - schools decline, roads have more potholes, property values fall, services like police and fire become spottier. This doesn't happen all at once - it happens over decades and is difficult to be aware of as it happens. Some suburbs are able to get past this difficult stage because their tax revenue is bolstered in some way by a large business being close by, etc. The 15 minute city concept is focused on making specific areas more livable and dense so that the tax base can support better services and in the long run decrease costs for the people living there. The objective is not to make gentrified high cost areas (although this is what happens sometimes due to poor planning and no low cost housing being built). As far as the surveillance is concerned, that isn't really part of the 15 minute city concept. I think Oxford in England implemented something that had a surveillance component.
I think the reaction is to the Oxford scheme where people were to be fined for driving through the city. The idea was to make you use the ring road, and drive a lot further. They way it seems to be set up is a recipe for dystopian control. It's England so there's a massive amount of surveillance already there and that surveillance would be needed to fine people for taking routes they shouldn't. So basicly everything the conspiracy theorists said was either true, or could be made true with trivial effort.
you could much more easily watch cars instead of people, especially ebcause of things such as license plates, which only allows for further surveillance in the state
Great conversation
Thanks for posting! It's sad that this is coming to be so contested
its being contested because they aren't what you think they are, the look great right now but they aren't close to finished, yet, they haven't begun borders yet, and they haven't enforced the many new laws that will be coming. so many people are blindly just watching it happen with their eyes wide shut.
This conversation is very important. We should want to make towns and cities more walkable and less car dependent but also be concerned about governments and corporations forcing change upon people to suit their agenda.
The word "freedom" can be used in many senses, but when used in any conversation concerning government, I find it wise to define it in terms of its inverse relationship to government (Freedom = 1/Government). As such, the convenience, accessibility, efficiency and empowerment which civic planning may hypothetically provide can be weighed against the potential infringements on freedom. That being said, we may find, individually and collectively, that freedom can be more fully realized when we liberate ourselves from old habits.
As a Conservative who to be honest disagrees with some strong towns concepts, I follow and just hear from those who don't like the 15 minute cities. There are two realms of concerns; realistic and conspiracy.
Realistic concerns include a genuine concern about losing the right to drive cars in certain areas if a person prefers that. Plans to limit or stop cars from entering certain areas is seen as a loss of freedom. You view not needing a car as freedom, they view having a car as freedom.
Conspiracy concerns are much more wild. There's people who for some reason believe that people will not only be forced to move into these cities, but that they'll essentially be prisoners there and not allowed to leave. And on top of that throw in other surveillance systems that have been talked about.
I personally don't have an issue with the 15 minute city. My issues is the feeling I get from at least some strong towns advocates is that everything has to be dense urban and that people who prefer suburban living and don't mind cars are bad. I personally believe that cities should have both dense, walkable neighborhoods and low density, car oriented suburban neighborhoods.
I would suggest you watch some of the videos from the Not Just Bikes channel about suburbs - the problem that has been shown statistically with suburbs ( the way they are currently built in the US and Canada) is that they are unsustainable from a tax base standpoint over the long term. Suburbs are established using bonds that eventually have to be paid off. The roads, sewage systems, electric grid, etc. cost too much to maintain as time passes. As taxes are increased to cover the maintenance costs the people living there decide to move out even further to escape the taxes that their suburban "lifestyle" caused. What can keep some suburbs going is allowing mixed-use housing, bike paths, and apartments to be interspersed among the more traditional communities. But that does mean zoning laws have to be flexible to allow businesses to be near to homes. Lot size should also be flexible. Eventually suburbs have to allow much more concentrated areas for business and living in order to exist . The problem is that when cars are the only choice for transportation it spreads out communities even more, making them less viable. What you get is concentric rings of failing suburbs after the taxes rise. When I say "failing" I mean they can no longer support the service levels that they used to - schools decline, roads have more potholes, property values fall, services like police and fire become spottier. This doesn't happen all at once - it happens over decades and is difficult to be aware of as it happens. Some suburbs are able to get past this difficult stage because their tax revenue is bolstered in some way by a large business being close by, etc.
The 15 minute city concept is focused on making specific areas more livable and dense so that the tax base can support better services and in the long run decrease costs for the people living there. The objective is not to make gentrified high cost areas (although this is what happens sometimes due to poor planning and no low cost housing being built). As far as the surveillance is concerned, that isn't really part of the 15 minute city concept. I think Oxford in England implemented something that had a surveillance component.
Suburban neighborhoods are fine as long as suburban homes are taxed $30k per year to pay for it.
I think the reaction is to the Oxford scheme where people were to be fined for driving through the city. The idea was to make you use the ring road, and drive a lot further. They way it seems to be set up is a recipe for dystopian control. It's England so there's a massive amount of surveillance already there and that surveillance would be needed to fine people for taking routes they shouldn't. So basicly everything the conspiracy theorists said was either true, or could be made true with trivial effort.
you could much more easily watch cars instead of people, especially ebcause of things such as license plates, which only allows for further surveillance in the state