Originally, the "15 minutes city" is simply a city planning guideline, which tells you that cities should strive to have every amenities close to where people live, ideally everyone should have everything in a 15 minutes radius. Far-right lunatics interpreted it as being constrained by the government in a 15 minutes radius around their home, which is insane thinking indeed.
I live in a "15 minutes city", Paris, I have 5 grocery stores in a 5 minutes walking radius, I go to work in 15 minutes using the metro, and if I want to I can get anywhere in France in a few hours by taking the train. That someone would not want this and instead fight for their rights to commute 2 hours everyday by car is insane to me.
I live in Melbourne (and have for 15 years), so I'm not some rural hillbilly crying about cars per se - in fact I'm not even talking about cars: That placard literally says: 'Stay Home!'
I think bicycle paths and pedestrian access to places is extremely important, and not just for the environment, but being told that I should 'stay home' as part of some bigger picture plan to combat climate change is absolutely redolent of bureaucratic authoritarianism and environmental tyranny, and it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable.
> it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable
Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. This campaign is merely trying to get people invested in the areas in which they live, which is a noble goal. It's sad that some of the language it uses has been warped into trigger words by the media. Fear is a lucrative business.
> Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch.
On the off chance that you are actually attempting to persuade me in good faith, you might reconsider in the future the use of phrases like this one and the impact they are likely to have on a person, particularly if, while casting aspersions, they suggest a set of circumstances that aren’t true.
As a fellow Australian I well recall earlier campaigns that started out seeking to modify behaviour and later devolved into draconian law.
Recall the 1970s Life. Be In It campaign?
Started innocently enough and before we knew what had happened there were Aerobics Internment Camps for the ice cream eaters and Big Sister MTV alertotainments from Oliver Newton Goebbels.
Clearly I'm heavy with the sarcasm, there is a difference between enforcing policy with lawfare in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as COVID and doing the same in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as obesity, or a life threatening crisis such as AGW climate change.
I do seem to recall that we (Australia) made it through the AIDS years and increasing road accidents with mostly public campaigns and not so much law.
Probably the best path through public policy is to understand the issues, the risks, and to stay engaged at various levels of setting and enacting policy.
Murdoch's outlets are prime purveyors of this particular conspiracy theory, but you're absolutely right I shouldn't have assumed they had a hand in how you developed your idea. I also agree it's a valid question as to whether the best way to reach someone down a rabbit hole is to gently cajole them or slap them in the face. Where in Melbourne did you see the placard?
so the presentation leaves a bit to be desired but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government)
likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day.
the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it.
do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better.
a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.
I understand a lot of what you're saying, but the fact is that radical anything - whether it's the radical left or right, radical environmentalists, radical feminists, etc., are all ultimately trying to move their grievances and solutions into the mainstream. Just because the makers of the placard admit 'staying home' would be radical right now doesn't mean that they want it to stay that way - indeed political issues to some extent always begin as radical ideas and by definition those that are eventually accepted by a society are no longer seen as radical when they are accepted.
You might try to say this is just a slippery slope argument, but they are already advocating for something they (and you) admit is radical - the only caveat is that they qualify it as being radical for now. Clearly if a few radical environmentalists 'stay home!' there isn't going to be a dent in any metric that these people swear by - staying home will only begin to affect things if many or most people do it, whether by choice or by force, and that's the kind of wholesale societal change that I find absolutely bonkers and terrifying.
side note: when i lived in singapore i actually felt what it means not to be able to travel outside of city borders. i mean, yeah, you could travel, but you had to check a border crossing point, change currency, etc...
it felt like a trap. china during covid was similar. just replace passport controls with vaccination checks every time you travel from one city to another.
i believe many of the city states and islands would feel the same. even new zealand felt like that when your goal was to be among people. it is perfect to get away from people though.
I think it's a good thing if you never need to travel. Why would I want a 40 minute drive to get to a supermarket if I could instead get to an identical one in 10 minutes?
Similarly why would I want to travel for an hour to go to an office to sit on zoom meetings all day instead of doing it from my spare bedroom.
Reducing required travel is a great thing for me, gives me more time to do things on interesting travel. Rather than spending 90 minutes a week driving to/from the shop I save 78 hours a year, which is more than enough time to take up a new hobby.
They are not, at least no more than anyone else. nimby covers all sides of the asile. most live within a 10 minute drive of a supermarket and are happy with that. Food deserts are generally very left wing - poor people (or framers who are obviously to rural to get anything)
Do you realize that the topic was _walking_ distance, not driving?
I live in a German city where I do not even have to walk a street with cars to get to a super market, a couple of restaurants, three bakeries, barber shop, drugstore, pharmacy, a butcher, a bookshop, a general supplies store, a post office, newspaper/tobacco store, a public library, about a dozen or more doctors and dentists, a massage studio, therapists, two tailors, a bunch of other shops like clothing and such, a cinema, multiple bus stops, a subway station, a park, multiple playgrounds, etc. Once a week there's a larger food market with fresh produce. There are office buildings, a kindergarden/preschool, a church, three hotels.
All within 5 minutes of _walking_ distance. All walkable on foot paths without even seeing or hearing the annoyance of a car. If you cross even just one street, there's a school and a lot more things.
I can take a public bus two stops to a large asia market (or a 20min walk/10min bike ride). There's currently a 50 Euro monthly train pass that is valid for all regional/subway trains and busses all across Germany, so I can simply hop on and off whenever I want. 10 minutes by subway to the main train station and city center, where a lot more can be reached by 5 more minutes of walking.
And no, I am not limited by any of that. It just _adds_ options and convenience.
I don't think anyone thinks that everything you want is within 15 minutes - just that most daily necessities and services are available within 15 minutes.
Nobody on the far left thinks this. If they thought that then why would they be into subway systems so much? Same for progressive urban planners more generslly.
I didn't say a majority but if you follow the urbanist movement for long you will see them. They are not into subways. A minortiy for sure but they exist and are vocal
Judging a whole urban design philosophy by the most fringe members of the most fringe groups hardly seems like a good faith argument. Especially when those people are almost never even urban designers or in any way related to the field.
Did you link to the right comment? I read all the parent comments as well as the reply, and none talk about trains being so rare that they wouldn't exist.
Or do you just make the logical jump from "few trips should require a train" to "no trains exist"? There is no logical connection between those statements.
I'm not going to spend hours in the archives of every urbanist blog and forumn to find a few dozen examples. I was asked for one and so I found the most recient here.
19 out of 20 thinks being in the local neighborhood doesn't sound that crazy.
In the last week, I think I've been to work 5 times (bicycle), the supermarket twice or maybe three (foot), the doctor (foot), a bar (bicycle), a restaurant (foot), a fast food place (foot), visited a friend (train, 35 minutes + 10 walking) etc.
Work in your meighborhood is impossible - most people live in a 'marriage' situation meaning both would limit their job options and even if you get the job in your neighborhood that doesn't mean you won't switch jobs.
I have _never_ seen anyone take that stance; the same people who argue for planning ‘15 minute cities’ (that is, correctly planned cities; this isn’t some new idea and is how cities were historically normally planned) generally also advocate for good _commuter_ (ie medium range) and intercity transport.
I mean, I’m sure there’s someone out there advocating for efficient city design but who’s opposed to developing transport, but they’re an extreme outlier.
OOC, is this a purely theoretical bogeyperson, or have you ever actually seen anyone take this stance? If the latter, just how many (to the nearest ten, say) posters of Pol Pot did they have on the wall?
If you choose to interpret a piece of advice on how to improve your neighborhood as some Orwellian authoritarian propaganda poster commanding you to never leave your house, I'm afraid I can't do anything for you anymore.
I live in a "15 minutes city", Paris, I have 5 grocery stores in a 5 minutes walking radius, I go to work in 15 minutes using the metro, and if I want to I can get anywhere in France in a few hours by taking the train. That someone would not want this and instead fight for their rights to commute 2 hours everyday by car is insane to me.