Debunked: 15 Minute Cities are a plot to confine people into regimented zones

[Mendel]

I think their goal is to drive the problem people out and have a town full of people who think like them.

baseless propaganda, not worthy of metabunk

why are you feeding conspiracy theories, deirdre?

 

[deirdre]

why are you feeding conspiracy theories, deirdre?

When in Rome...

 

[FatPhil]

The policy is obviously designed to confine movement of people into regimented zones.

It obviously isn't, because that's not what it does.

 

[Mendel]

It obviously isn't, because that's not what it does.

exactly. if these policies were the start of a slippery slope, then, looking back on decades of similar policies in countries all over the world, shouldn't we have evidence for that slope yet? (See my post earlier, "At least 25,000 traffic filters ...")

The question is, how would a policy to keep through traffic out of residential neighbourhoods look like that wouldn't trigger these CTist protests? and the answer is, that's s bad question, since the CTists don't really care about the facts when they're scared.

"There aren't any scary facts, so just imagine a slippery slope that leads to them, but it exists only in our minds." You're scaring yourselves, people.

 

[tinkertailor]

What I've seen is the forbidding of residential streets as rat-runs. You can still get to your destination, but you'll need to take a more suitable preexisting route. You seem to be thinking that there's some kind of Universal Declaration of Car Drivers Rights that states that if there exists a paved route from A to B then a car may take that route. That's never been the case, there is no such freedom, you are not having it removed from you.

I live on such a rat-run. All of residential West Los Angeles is a rat-run at certain times of day because commuters would rather take shortcuts through suburbs than freeways. Google Maps exacerbates this. Because of these traffic patterns, it has taken me an hour and a half to drop off ice cream via car at a friend's place three blocks away. It was not ice cream when it arrived. It would have been easier to walk it there.

Edit to make this clear: I am all for restricting access during certain times of day because I already have to restrict my out-of-house activities in order to make it home between the hours of 3 and 7pm. I think it should be the commuters that should be restricted, not the residents who need to get home after a quick grocery store run. It isn't fair to me that a 5-minute drive turns into 45 minutes in traffic.

In regards to city streets being turned in to pedestrian areas, I will say that businesses in both my home town (small NorCal tourist town) and my current area of residence (west Los Angeles) have kept high-COVID-era modifications to streets that limit car traffic and encourage foot traffic. For instance, my home town completely cut off all car traffic on a major downtown street and the store owners love it, because tourists roam more often and treat it like a park. In LA, many restaurants now have outdoor seating in what used to be a lane of the street in front of their door. As a motorist, it's mildly irritating and requires some extra courtesy, but it's manageable. As a pedestrian, it's great. The restaurant owners certainly love it.

 

[Ann K]

When in Rome...

You're not in Rome, Deirdre. You're in a place where educated people attempt to deal with facts and evidence, exactly the opposite of a haven for conspiracists.

 

[deirdre]

if these policies were the start of a slippery slope, then, looking back on decades of similar policies in countries all over the world, shouldn't we have evidence for that slope yet? (See my post earlier, "At least 25,000 traffic filters ...")

my guess is most places where they put in traffic filters didnt publish a 15 minute neighborhood plan (PDF attached)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e_cities.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2fYh2JE97YV1i3MJ1kZ4EP

Local Plan Preferred Options 15 Minute neighbourhoods background paper 1. Introduction The vision in 2040 is that Oxford will be a healthy and inclusive city, with strong communities that benefit from equal opportunities for everyone, not only in housing, but also to nature, to employment, social and leisure opportunities and to healthcare. This paper focuses on the 15-minute neighbourhood/city concept. It builds on the 'Community and Cultural Facilities', 'Grey and Digital Infrastructure' and 'Retail' topic papers prepared and published for the Issues consultation in Summer 2021. These papers set out the relevant national, regional and local policy context; as well as highlighting some potential approaches that could be pursued in developing new policies for the Local Plan 2040. This paper should be considered as a continuation of these earlier Issues papers, so material will not be repeated here.

Article:

In Oxford the situation is a little bit muddled, largely because conspiracy theorists appear to be confused by (or to have deliberately confused) two different local government policies: the city council's 15-minute-city plans and recent changes to traffic systems.

In its Local Plan 2040, Oxford City Council proposed installing 15-minute neighbourhoods throughout the city over the next 20 years. These plans don't include restricting people to their local areas, but instead focus on improving infrastructure and increasing mobility within neighbourhoods.

However, Oxfordshire County Council also recently announced traffic-reducing measures throughout the city.

Source: https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/the-small-english-city-at-the-centre-of-the-global-15-minute-city-storm-022023

 

[deirdre]

You're not in Rome, Deirdre. You're in a place where educated people attempt to deal with facts and evidence, exactly the opposite of a haven for conspiracists.

political agenda driven members are constantly making up motives for groups of people. but when i do it, it's bad? ok.

 

[Ann K]

I think it should be the commuters that should be restricted, not the residents who need to get home after a quick grocery store run.

While I agree with most of what you wrote, I'll point out that the commuters are the people who are expected by their employers to be at a certain place at a certain time. No matter how many office jobs can be done over Zoom, the same cannot be said by the physician, the bus driver, the sales clerk, the pharmacist, and a thousand others whose occupation requires their presence, and upon whom you yourself depend for their services. The time of day you go for groceries is discretionary. Is it inconvenient for you? Perhaps. But as you pointed out, an hour and a half to travel a distance you could have walked is also inconvenient, isn't it? Sometimes you need to see when your own actions add to the problem.

 

[yoshy]

It's Oxford (ie ultra liberal). You are certainly free to move to another town. I think their goal is to drive the problem people out and have a town full of people who think like them. Which is fine, in my opinion. Besides i read they get 7 million tourists a year. Tourist towns suck to live in.

Every damn thread on something regarding social issues, you post these absurdly bad faith arguments. I don't understand how these posts don't get removed.

@Ann K and @Mendel - you both always respond patiently and effectively to these absurd arguments. I admire it

 

[Ann K]

you both always respond patiently and effectively to these absurd arguments. I admire it

< ** blushing modestly ** >

 

[deirdre]

I live on such a rat-run. All of residential West Los Angeles is a rat-run at certain times of day because commuters would rather take shortcuts through suburbs than freeways. Google Maps exacerbates this. Because of these traffic patterns, it has taken me an hour and a half to drop off ice cream via car at a friend's place three blocks away. It was not ice cream when it arrived. It would have been easier to walk it there.

Edit to make this clear: I am all for restricting access during certain times of day because I already have to restrict my out-of-house activities in order to make it home between the hours of 3 and 7pm. I think it should be the commuters that should be restricted, not the residents who need to get home after a quick grocery store run. It isn't fair to me that a 5-minute drive turns into 45 minutes in traffic.

traffic is an issue in alot of places. we have one nightmare road going into Danbury, years and years ago they even talked business parks into staggering their work times to try to alleviate traffic...but then they keep approving massive stores to open on that route (and even gave them their own traffic lights!!!!) and adding huge condo complexes to make matters worse. lol.

Don't get me started on when schools let out and half our parents now feel the need to pick up their kids personally so it's not just a handful of buses blocking stuff up. and does anyone slow down so that one guy making a left and blocking a half mile of drivers can actually make the left?! makes me crazy.

 

[deirdre]

I'll point out that the commuters are the people who are expected by their employers to be at a certain place at a certain time.

and if it takes an hour to get to work because of traffic on the highway, then you leave an hour before you need to get to work. if its snowing hard then you leave an hour and twenty minutes before you need to get to work. I thought we were all for making life more pleasant for residents?

 

[tinkertailor]

While I agree with most of what you wrote, I'll point out that the commuters are the people who are expected by their employers to be at a certain place at a certain time. No matter how many office jobs can be done over Zoom, the same cannot be said by the physician, the bus driver, the sales clerk, the pharmacist, and a thousand others whose occupation requires their presence, and upon whom you yourself depend for their services. The time of day you go for groceries is discretionary. Is it inconvenient for you? Perhaps. But as you pointed out, an hour and a half to travel a distance you could have walked is also inconvenient, isn't it? Sometimes you need to see when your own actions add to the problem.

That all sounds perfectly reasonable if you're talking about essential workers. I would happily let essential workers drive through my neighborhood. The thing is that those workers don't often work 9-5: the pharmacist, doctor, bus driver, and friendly Kroger employee work varied shifts in varied places all around the city, so their impact is minimal. I'm talking about different kinds of workers.

The problem in my case tech and lifestyle companies who insisted that they needed workers' butts in seats in the office parks they rent in expensive coastal areas. These luxurious locations are costly to live in, so most of their office drones commute to cheaper places 10-30 miles away. As such, there's way too many people getting out at the same time. Even staggered work hours, where they get out as early as 2 and as late as 7, mean that I now have a 5-hour chunk of day where I am restricted. The thing is, I don't have to be restricted. I live on a street that is seen as a "shortcut" by these people, and so what saves each individual office drone 5-10 minutes restricts the movement of ten thousand people for five hours, five days a week. For them, turning on my street is a momentary convenience that saves a nominal amount of time. For my neighbors and I, it's isolating.

Regarding my groceries: yes, I can be discretionary about when I get my groceries. When I'm not working or in school, I can budget my time so I have no traffic by leaving the house in a specific window of time, completing my errands in a pattern that goes with the flow of traffic, and getting home before a specific time. That's manageable. But I have places to be, too, and when I have a scheduled life where I'm out of the house for specific timed intervals, I don't have that luxury. When I have my own scheduled life and the only time I can buy groceries is in the afternoon, it can take me 7 minutes just to exit my apartment complex because of gridlock on the street, and that's with a dedicated traffic light. And yes, I walk to the services I can walk to, but sometimes it's risky, like walking ice cream to someone in the dark, alone, when it's rainy and no one in LA knows how to drive safely in wet conditions (I understand that getting ice cream for someone isn't an essential service, but sometimes someone needs a bit of Rocky Road when they're going through it, and I should be able to get it to them in a semi-reasonable amount of time). I guess I just don't get how it's okay for office workers to obliterate 25 hours of functional travel for entire communities of people for the sake of mild convenience. They have other options: wider boulevards, freeways, non-residential streets, carpools. I don't.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

The policy is obviously designed to confine movement of people into regimented zones. That's the point of the policy. It places everything a person would need within those zones. Which is then used to justify penalizing them for as superfluous travel. The key point of the policy is that by placing everything needed within 15 minutes of someone, they would never need to travel more than 15 minutes from where they lived.

No, because this is geometrically impossible. Every point has its own Marchetti constant (I remembered the term!). You can't make a 15 minute bounding box because the bounding boxes must overlap. Therefore you can't build infrastructure that restricts people into those boxes.

The whole thing is just a buzz word for development consistent with an individual household's walkshed containing most of the daily needs, rather than motor vehicle, train, or what have you. Numerous things cannot fit into the 15 minute ring and that's unavoidable. You cannot build that things that must be large (lumber yards, garden stores) or are used infrequently (medical specialists). These already exist in huge numbers, all over the world. The Pennsylvania Main Line outside of Philadelphia is an organically developed chain of them. Any real transit system is. You throw stations down a line, every one of them has a cluster of commercial properties around the station, that is surrounded by a ring of residential properties until you get far enough away that you're starting to get closer to a parallel line, and there you go. For a lot of things you need, you can walk to in the cluster around the train station. If you need something that's not at your village, you go down the line to the one that does. If you need something completely different, well, that's what the car or the intercity train or the danged airport is for.

 

[FatPhil]

You're scaring yourselves, people.

It's almost as if they prefer it that way.

 

[FatPhil]

political agenda driven members are constantly making up motives for groups of people. but when i do it, it's bad? ok.

That's paranoia.

 

[deirdre]

That's paranoia.

how could it be paranoia? i would never protest against traffic filters. less traffic for 35$ a day (after my initial 100 freebies)? i love the idea.

 

[aconspiracytheorist]

It obviously isn't, because that's not what it does.

 

[Landru]

View attachment 58458

The fact that these amenities "can be easily reached," does not mean confined.

 

[Mendel]

View attachment 58458

arguing by google results is about as anti-understanding as you can get.

the actual wikipedia article isn't a long read, but it gives a lot of references that can serve as starting points. Here's a quote:

Article:

Moreno's 2021 article introduced the 15-minute city concept as a way to ensure that urban residents can fulfill six essential functions within a 15-minute walk or bike from their dwellings: living, working, commerce, healthcare, education and entertainment.[12] The framework of this model has four components; density, proximity, diversity and digitalization.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

Note that coercion and confinement aren't part of that list.

This becomes obvious when you think of actual services:
• in the pre-mobile-phone days, it was true in many cities that you were never more than 15 minutes away from a payphone
• or a post box.
• A bus network might be set up such that every place has a bus stop within 15 minutes of it.

Did/do these examples require coercion or confinement? No, obviously not. So why would anyone think that extending this idea to other services require this?

And what does it have to do with efforts to keep through traffic out of residential neighborhoods? All of this scare fiction is best kept out of politics, or things like Brexit are bound to repeat.

 

[yoshy]

arguing by google results is about as anti-understanding as you can get.

the actual wikipedia article isn't a long read, but it gives a lot of references that can serve as starting points. Here's a quote:

Article:

Moreno's 2021 article introduced the 15-minute city concept as a way to ensure that urban residents can fulfill six essential functions within a 15-minute walk or bike from their dwellings: living, working, commerce, healthcare, education and entertainment.[12] The framework of this model has four components; density, proximity, diversity and digitalization.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

Note that coercion and confinement aren't part of that list.

This becomes obvious when you think of actual services:
• in the pre-mobile-phone days, it was true in many cities that you were never more than 15 minutes away from a payphone
• or a post box.
• A bus network might be set up such that every place has a bus stop within 15 minutes of it.

Did/do these examples require coercion or confinement? No, obviously not. So why would anyone think that extending this idea to other services require this?

And what does it have to do with efforts to keep through traffic out of residential neighborhoods? All of this scare fiction is best kept out of politics, or things like Brexit are bound to repeat.

It is disturbing how it is necessary to describe that having things close by leads to a happy and healthy population, and that urban planning is not, in fact, a scheme to put us all in cages.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Did/do these examples require coercion or confinement? No, obviously not. So why would anyone think that extending this idea to other services require this?

It is also impossible, as I mentioned before. The zones must overlap and must share points that are in different zones yet remain inside the 15 minute ring.

Imagine that the 15 minute rings are focused around train stations. Mendel here lives in Zone A and I live in Zone B. We could both work in, say, a dentist's office located at the boundary between Zones A and B. It services two halves of two zones, so A East and B West have this dentist's office within 15 minutes. A West and B East are serviced by other dentist's offices. We both have trips of less than eight minutes to our place of work, despite the dentist's offices in our own zone could be 15 minutes away. There's no logic behind "penalizing" one of us for leaving our zone when we actually traveled a shorter distance to leave the zone.

 

[Ann K]

It is also impossible, as I mentioned before. The zones must overlap and must share points that are in different zones yet remain inside the 15 minute ring.

Imagine that the 15 minute rings are focused around train stations. Mendel here lives in Zone A and I live in Zone B. We could both work in, say, a dentist's office located at the boundary between Zones A and B. It services two halves of two zones, so A East and B West have this dentist's office within 15 minutes. A West and B East are serviced by other dentist's offices. We both have trips of less than eight minutes to our place of work, despite the dentist's offices in our own zone could be 15 minutes away. There's no logic behind "penalizing" one of us for leaving our zone when we actually traveled a shorter distance to leave the zone.

Allow me to translate what your post appears to say: "It's not perfect, so it's no good".
You're reaching.

 

[aconspiracytheorist]

fatphil was incorrect. as proved by the widely available design definition of the 15 minute cities policy i illustrated was a simple google search away. mendel has corroborated that this definition is in fact the correct one by providing a matching definition they found during their deep dive into the wikipedia entry for this policy.

the policy is designed to place all essential services for every human need within 15-minutes walking distance so that no person would have to move more than 15-minutes from where they live to access them. this by design would result in people moving less. so the policy is clearly designed to keep people from moving more than 15-minutes from where they live.

it obviously does not include the use of force, which i have not claimed. however it does implicitly provide the justification for using force to restrict movement in future for any number of reasons. proof of this can be found during the pandemic, as it was an actual policy in Melbourne, Australia. the freedom of movement radius was 5km at its lowest, precisely because this was the distance that encompassed all essential services for the most amount people. thus removing people's justification for moving more than 5km from where they lived.

the issue is to do with the policy providing the infrastructure to justify restricting the freedom of movement to within 15 minute zones, not with explicitly restricting movement. the justification for restricting movement is always justified on something else - virus, traffic, pollution, terrorists etc. trying to debunk this line of reasoning by pointing out that it doesn't do what it justifies, is a strawman.

 

[Mendel]

mendel has corroborated that this definition is in fact the correct one by providing a matching definition they found during their deep dive into the wikipedia entry for this policy.

dude, reading an encyclopedia entry is NOT a "deep dive", and in this case took less time than watching any conspiracy video on youtube (although I had to provide my own music). Please read more!

it obviously does not include the use of force, which i have not claimed. however it does implicitly provide the justification for using force to restrict movement in future for any number of reasons. proof of this can be found during the pandemic, as it was an actual policy in Melbourne, Australia. the freedom of movement radius was 5km at its lowest, precisely because this was the distance that encompassed all essential services for the most amount people. thus removing people's justification for moving more than 5km from where they lived.

yet this does not constitute "zones", or rather it makes 100,000 zones, each of which overlaps with thousands of other zones.

Article:

Under the latest lockdown, Victorian residents cannot travel further than 5 kilometres from their home.

There are some exceptions to that. They are:

• To return home
• To access necessary goods and services where they aren't within 5km of you
• To visit an intimate partner
• To visit a person in your "single bubble"
• For authorised work and permitted education
• Work at an interstate location (where permitted by another state)
• Care and compassionate reasons (specific exemptions apply)

Source: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100297252

It's not "obviously designed to confine movement of people into regimented zones".

You've been scared into opposing making people's lives better.

 

[FatPhil]

It is disturbing how it is necessary to describe that having things close by leads to a happy and healthy population, and that urban planning is not, in fact, a scheme to put us all in cages.

It is disturbing that the concept of a "15 minute city" even needed to be invented. We europeans have a word for "15 minute cities" already - it's "cities". It's only the unwalkable urban sprawl of the modern USA based on counter-productive (unless you think the auto and gas industries have conspired to incentivise humans to be 1-person-1-two-ton-vehicle bound) zoning rules that has created any city which doesn't have all day-to-day amenities to hand.

 

[FatPhil]

fatphil was incorrect. as proved by the widely available design definition of the 15 minute cities policy i illustrated was a simple google search away.

I've been incorrect at least once in my life, I'm sure. Would you care to identify which thing that I've said you are now talking about? If you believe you have counter-evidence to any claim I've made, quote it and provide a link to it.

Unless you're just repeating your - demonstrated by Landru to be completely missing the point - silly screenshot from yesterday. In which case, don't bother, that response has already been laughed at enough.

 

[deirdre]

Allow me to translate what your post appears to say: "It's not perfect, so it's no good".

it doesn't appear to say that.

 

[FatPhil]

There's no logic behind "penalizing" one of us for leaving our zone when we actually traveled a shorter distance to leave the zone.

At the moment we appear to be discussing something that isn't real, something that exists only in febrile imaginations. The only thing that's been proposed is disincentivising inappropriate route selection, not destination choice or availability. Giving a straw man's a quick trim only gives credibility to those who built the straw man, and in my view is counterproductive. The whole "penalties for leaving your zone" argument is nothing but a straw man, it should be rejected as such.

 

[yoshy]

fatphil was incorrect. as proved by the widely available design definition of the 15 minute cities policy i illustrated was a simple google search away. mendel has corroborated that this definition is in fact the correct one by providing a matching definition they found during their deep dive into the wikipedia entry for this policy.

the policy is designed to place all essential services for every human need within 15-minutes walking distance so that no person would have to move more than 15-minutes from where they live to access them. this by design would result in people moving less. so the policy is clearly designed to keep people from moving more than 15-minutes from where they live.

it obviously does not include the use of force, which i have not claimed. however it does implicitly provide the justification for using force to restrict movement in future for any number of reasons. proof of this can be found during the pandemic, as it was an actual policy in Melbourne, Australia. the freedom of movement radius was 5km at its lowest, precisely because this was the distance that encompassed all essential services for the most amount people. thus removing people's justification for moving more than 5km from where they lived.

the issue is to do with the policy providing the infrastructure to justify restricting the freedom of movement to within 15 minute zones, not with explicitly restricting movement. the justification for restricting movement is always justified on something else - virus, traffic, pollution, terrorists etc. trying to debunk this line of reasoning by pointing out that it doesn't do what it justifies, is a strawman.

CityNerd on Youtube is a good source for short videos explaining the new urbanism movement in the US. These plans are designed to improve the quality of life for people. I highly recommend watching more of his videos to get an idea of why these walkable cities actually lead to higher quality of life. Here's a video for you:


The video is only 15 minutes long and uses Valencia, Spain as a comparison. He describes upsides like freedom of movement for both adults and children. At around 10 minutes in he includes a few examples of upsides, like close access to supermarkets (with actual fresh ingredients, not just processed, packaged foods) and no car payments. Being able to avoid cars improves safety. Hopefully, it reduces some of your fears about the concept.

Personally, I am one of the lucky folks in a major US city who lives in a neighborhood with a 95 walk score and 99 transit score, essentially I'm already in a 15 minute city. It is just wonderful to be able to walk outside and have all my needs within a 10 minute walk, whether it's going to the doctor or sipping on a nice espresso listening to street musicians. If I need to go somewhere else, I have a choice of subway or bus (or Ubers if necessary). I am not confined. In fact, I have even more freedom of movement than someone who is beholden to a car in poorly designed cities. "15 minute cities" are safer, lead to higher quality of life, and are just simply pleasant to live in.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Allow me to translate what your post appears to say: "It's not perfect, so it's no good".
You're reaching.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. There's no "not perfect" in there because there's no perfect state. I'm also not saying that it is good or bad. I'm simply describing the distribution of trips and the relevant travel times.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Personally, I am one of the lucky folks in a major US city who lives in a neighborhood with a 95 walk score and 99 transit score, essentially I'm already in a 15 minute city. It is just wonderful to be able to walk outside and have all my needs within a 10 minute walk, whether it's going to the doctor or sipping on a nice espresso listening to street musicians. If I need to go somewhere else, I have a choice of subway or bus (or Ubers if necessary). I am not confined. In fact, I have even more freedom of movement than someone who is beholden to a car in poorly designed cities. "15 minute cities" are safer, lead to higher quality of life, and are just simply pleasant to live in.

I in no way believe in any of these conspiracy theories, but I do get where some of them are coming from. You personally love living where you do and the way your do. That's great. I live different.

I live in the country. I have a 3K sq' garden and a small vineyard. It's very quiet and I see the stars at night. I have zero desire to live in downtown San Fransico or anywhere else similar. I'm a contractor, walking to work has never been something I could do. I don't need cafes and restaurants nearby, as I like cooking and I'm quite capable of making coffee in the morning. If there is something that I occasionally need or desire in a bigger city, such as entertainment or an airport, I can go there. Even then, I tend to prefer our local little live theater to a big Broadway type production.

I think issues arise when people get the feeling that the way one person lives is perceived as "better". If living in a high-density urban environment is "better" than living in the countryside, than not living in a high-density urban area is "less-better". If we want people to live "better", do we want them all to live in high-density urban areas?

If I choose not to live "better", than am I wrong? Do I just not realize what "better" is? Should I be living in a better place? I can see where people get a little reflexive and start on a slippery slope. And it works in reverse, though a smaller group, the "leave the cities and back to nature" people can have their own idea of "better".

I think another thing that gets lost is the whole idea can sound "elitist". Who lives in an urban area and can walk to their job? Largely office workers. Not trades people. Not factory workers. Here's the Tesla plant in Freemont CA. The closest apartment complex I could find was a 40 minute walk:

Elon's other business, Twitter, is located in Downtown San Fransisco, so lots of opportunities to walk to work. But more Twitter employees are collage educated white collar workers compared to assembly line factory workers at Tesla. Likewise for the other factory workers in the surrounding industrial complex near Tesla. And who wants to live within walking distance of a large factory complex?

Again, I'm not saying there is a conspiracy to lock people up. But, when there is a notion of, "this is a better way to live, trust us" gets mixed up with actual COVID lockdowns, I see where some peole are coming from.

 

[Mendel]

I live in the country. I have a 3K sq' garden and a small vineyard. It's very quiet and I see the stars at night. I have zero desire to live in downtown San Fransico or anywhere else similar.

neither is a problem, suburbia is, with no public transport and no access to anything, not even fresh food, living there requires using a car

Here's the Tesla plant in Freemont CA. The closest apartment complex I could find was a 40 minute walk:

two miles is a short bicycle ride, if there is infrastructure for it

 

[yoshy]

I in no way believe in any of these conspiracy theories, but I do get where some of them are coming from. You personally love living where you do and the way your do. That's great. I live different.
[snipping to make shorter]

Again, I'm not saying there is a conspiracy to lock people up. But, when there is a notion of, "this is a better way to live, trust us" gets mixed up with actual COVID lockdowns, I see where some peole are coming from.

This whole response is honestly really confusing to me. "15 minute cities" is an urban planning concept...for cities. It has literally nothing to do with people who enjoy living in the country. People who like country living can continue doing that.

I think issues arise when people get the feeling that the way one person lives is perceived as "better". If living in a high-density urban environment is "better" than living in the countryside, than not living in a high-density urban area is "less-better". If we want people to live "better", do we want them all to live in high-density urban areas?

Again, comparing city to the countryside is not the point. The apt comparison is planned-out "15 minute city" to unplanned city. 15 minute cities are objectively better by metrics like access to healthcare, fresh food, and parks. That's the point.

If I choose not to live "better", than am I wrong? Do I just not realize what "better" is? Should I be living in a better place? I can see where people get a little reflexive and start on a slippery slope. And it works in reverse, though a smaller group, the "leave the cities and back to nature" people can have their own idea of "better".

This line of thinking just reminds of pickup truck drivers who get insecure when they see electric cars and roll coal on them or block electric chargers.

I think another thing that gets lost is the whole idea can sound "elitist". Who lives in an urban area and can walk to their job? Largely office workers. Not trades people. Not factory workers. Here's the Tesla plant in Freemont CA. The closest apartment complex I could find was a 40 minute walk:

Hence why urban planners encourage public transportation development.

Again, I'm not saying there is a conspiracy to lock people up. But, when there is a notion of, "this is a better way to live, trust us" gets mixed up with actual COVID lockdowns, I see where some peole are coming from.

Again, weird insecurity coming through here. Having things nearby and access to things that are required for healthy living are objectively better ways to live. There isn't any weird "trust us".

 

[NorCal Dave]

This whole response is honestly really confusing to me. "15 minute cities" is an urban planning concept...for cities. It has literally nothing to do with people who enjoy living in the country. People who like country living can continue doing that.

Agreed. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was commenting on people that get conspiratorial about the concept and where they might be coming from and the fears they have, unreasonable as they may be. But I'll offer the idea of people in large swaths of Eastern/Southern Oregon wanting to join Idaho or get together with parts of Northern California to form the State of Jefferson. They feel that the city folk want them to live the way the city folk do. They feel they have no voice.

Again, comparing city to the countryside is not the point. The apt comparison is planned-out "15 minute city" to unplanned city. 15 minute cities are objectively better by metrics like access to healthcare, fresh food, and parks. That's the point.

Agreed again.

This line of thinking just reminds of pickup truck drivers who get insecure when they see electric cars and roll coal on them or block electric chargers.

Yes, those knuckle-heads are out there. My diesel truck is a '14, so it literally can't "roll coal" and unless I need something that fits in the truck, I take the Model 3 out to the store, which, as I installed my own solar system, I can drive almost for free.

Hence why urban planners encourage public transportation development.

Yes, but now we're not talking about a "15 minute" city where someone just walks to the office everyday. They're now living in an urban area and riding the train/bus to the industrial park/area to be a factory worker. Or, if one is in the trades, riding the train/bus with their tools and equipment. At some point they may decide I'll just take my own car/truck to work.

neither is a problem, suburbia is, with no public transport and no access to anything, not even fresh food, living there requires using a car

I find this a bit of a myth. I've lived in what would be considered suburbia for much of my life, at least in California. There are grocery stores all over the place. I frequently walked or biked to the store in Sacramento and in the smaller city of Chico. If there are a lot of houses with a lot of people living there, someone is going to build a grocery store, often several. With plenty of fresh food. I don't get the idea that all kinds of fresh food is harvested out in the country and then trucked through the suburbs to the city, while the suburbs only get the frozen leftovers. If cities are full of fresh food, where's it coming from?

Maybe Europe is different. On the US west coast, there are a number of small to large grocery chains. They have large distribution warehouses, often in the suburbs or outlying areas where everything is brought in and then shipped out to city and suburban locations equally. Sure a big city will have a bigger concentration of stores, it has a bigger concentration of population. Here's grocery stores in San Fransisco:

And here is the South Bay area suburb of Morgan Hill, where I grew up in the '70s:

Can some people walk to the store in either place? Sure. Can more people walk or use transport in San Fransisco than in Morgan Hill? I suppose that's true. Is the point that people in Morgan Hill may drive more that people in San Fransisco? If the perception becomes, and I'm not saying that you're implying this, the people in San Fransisco are living a "better" life than those in Morgan Hill, because they don't drive as much, people are going to react. That's all I'm saying.

Suburbs are the in between. I can't live in the country because my job keeps me close to the city, but I don't want to live in a concrete high rise in a crowded urban center, or often, I can't afford to live in the urban center, so I live in between.

 

[Mendel]

I find this a bit of a myth. I've lived in what would be considered suburbia for much of my life, at least in California. There are grocery stores all over the place. I frequently walked or biked to the store in Sacramento and in the smaller city of Chico. If there are a lot of houses with a lot of people living there, someone is going to build a grocery store, often several. With plenty of fresh food.

Yet:

Article:

In 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 39.5 million people or 12.8% of the population were living in low-income and low-access areas.[6] Of this number, 19 million people live in "food deserts," low-income census tracts that are more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.[6][7]

Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with inadequate access to transportation, which makes them less attractive markets for large supermarket chains.[8][9] These areas lack suppliers of fresh foods, such as meats, fruits, and vegetables. Instead, available foods are likely to be processed and high in sugar and fats, which are known contributors to obesity in the United States.[10]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

 

[Ann K]

I in no way believe in any of these conspiracy theories, but I do get where some of them are coming from. You personally love living where you do and the way your do. That's great. I live different.

I live in the country. I have a 3K sq' garden and a small vineyard. It's very quiet and I see the stars at night. I have zero desire to live in downtown San Fransico or anywhere else similar. I'm a contractor, walking to work has never been something I could do. I don't need cafes and restaurants nearby, as I like cooking and I'm quite capable of making coffee in the morning. If there is something that I occasionally need or desire in a bigger city, such as entertainment or an airport, I can go there. Even then, I tend to prefer our local little live theater to a big Broadway type production.

I think we are veering away from the REASON for the traffic regulations. It has to do with the very real problem of high congestion in some places that essentially make the streets impassible, a problem that arises a lot in older cities that were not designed for high levels of vehicular traffic. It's not about preferences of a place to live, it's about necessity.

I'm - OK, I'll use the dreaded word - elderly. I drive everywhere I go, and (American style) I live where every purchase I make is from a place that provides plenty of parking space. But occasionally I have to travel into places that I WISH had less traffic congestion, such as yesterday to my tax guy. It only takes a few such trips to be grateful that I live close to the post office, the bank, the pharmacy, and two shopping centers, plus an unlimited supply of pizzerias. More to the point, I don't have to go out during rush hour. Much as the bucolic area you describe sounds attractive, it is a place for someone younger and more vigorous than I. As one ages, a car is more of a necessity and availability of services is much appreciated.

I think it's a matter of cutting down on unnecessary traffic in a time and place not designed to handle it. Anecdotally, I understand Amsterdam strongly encourages living near one's work ...within biking distance ...but I don't know how they regulate it. I'll have to look that up.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Yet:

Article:

In 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 39.5 million people or 12.8% of the population were living in low-income and low-access areas.[6] Of this number, 19 million people live in "food deserts," low-income census tracts that are more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.[6][7]

Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with inadequate access to transportation, which makes them less attractive markets for large supermarket chains.[8][9] These areas lack suppliers of fresh foods, such as meats, fruits, and vegetables. Instead, available foods are likely to be processed and high in sugar and fats, which are known contributors to obesity in the United States.[10]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Yes, but I guess I read the article a little different. Suburbs aren't by nature any more likely to have limited access to good food and urban areas aren't automatically full of great food options. It's more of a socio-economic result of lower income people settling in the most affordable areas in urban, suburban and rural areas.

I got curious and thought about looking up some rental and home prices in various locations and their relation to food availability, but as noted above:

I think we are veering away from the REASON for the traffic regulations.

I seem to have contributed to topic drift, so my bad.

But at the risk of going off topic again:

Anecdotally, I understand Amsterdam strongly encourages living near one's work ...within biking distance ...but I don't know how they regulate it.

Yeah, how would that work? If one changes jobs, is one encouraged to move? Or is one encouraged to stay in one job indifferently once living arrangements have been acquired? Isn't the Amsterdam housing market pretty tight? If even partly true, I think I can come up with a good conspiracy theory about "Dutch Officials Assign Homes and Jobs Based on Location, With No Say for Workers". Maybe another thread though.

 

[Mendel]

I'm - OK, I'll use the dreaded word - elderly. I drive everywhere I go

so what do we do when we're too old to safely drive?

Suburbs aren't by nature any more likely to have limited access to good food

I had heard about some urban planning in the US (Houston?) zoning suburbs as exclusively residential; if you disallow mixed zoning, there's no space for commerce to set up near people's homes.