15 minute cities / neighborhoods

In a push against urban sprawl and car-centric urban design, there has been a movement in recent years to promote walkability and bike usage in cities. The "15 minute city" is a concept that promotes the idea that a person living in a city should be able to access most essential and entertainment services within a 15 minute walk. While many people like the idea of living close to everything they need on foot, some are opposed to the movement, especially in North America, which has traditionally taken a more car-centric approach to urban design with a bigger presence of urban sprawl compared to Europe. Some believe that the 15 minute city could fracture cities and others believe that the movement is a conspiracy to restrict a person's movement outside the neighborhood.

Personally, I'd like to live somewhere that I can do my shopping and most of my daily activities without needing a car (even though I like cars), but I'm a bit disgruntled by the insane prices of real estate. The market has gotten so out of hand that buying a house/condo in a city where amenities are convenient is akin to buying a mansion. Thus, to me, this concept right now sounds like it's designed for wealthier people while the average or the less wealthy have to settle for living in car-centric suburbs.

What are your thoughts about the concept and the general idea of walkability and accessibility in neighborhoods?

I like it. I mean, I don't want to live in a big city at all, and I love having a car, but I support these efforts. They'd make city living somewhat more tolerable.

What is considered most essential and entertainment services?

Gee, if I know Americans like I think I do... why I'd say you gotta have a laundromat, a juice bar and a drive-in movie theater at the very least. Heck, a roller disco would be just swell too!

I lived in Christchurch, New Zealand for 5 years, where pretty much everything was either a short walk and/or a quick bus ride away. This kind of urban planning is far from new or radical.

There are generally two kinds of cities in this world: "people cities" and "car cities." Europe tends to have "people cities," while industrialising middle income countries tend to have "car cities." Having lived in both, I think "people cities" are much, much better, and anyone clinging on to their "car cities" are stupid.

The prices of walkable neighboorhoods is only extremely high because 1. it's an awesome way to live and 2. they are scarce due to dumb zoning laws. If walkable neighboorhoods could be built everywhere, the supply abundance would drive down the price. From the perspective of infrastructure and other building costs, it's cheaper to make a dense neighboorhood than a suburban sprawl so in theory that could be the cheapest way to live if we built more of it.

Doesn't sound like you know Americans.

15 minute city and wants a drive-in movie theater. Surely you jest?

That would be a dream, but is unattainable in America. I'm all for it, though.

yes, walkable cities are amazing. After visiting europe and seeing how close things are is great. Then coming back home and seeing the shitty traffic on the roads, literally all times of the day, even at midnight. Its frankly pathetic, these car cities.

Traffic sucks and (I say this as an American) the opposition to movements like this just goes to show how irrational and against our own interests we can be in this country.

The whole concept of "commuter culture" or "car culture" is part of our DNA at this point, and it makes improving one's society incredibly difficult.

Gas is already expensive, traffic is terrible, and commuting 45+ minutes to work sucks...what do we really have to lose? Freedom? No one is making you give up your car...

The idea sounds good, but 15 minute walk to get everywhere seems unrealistic. 15 minutes by bicycle, city bus or a goddam electric scooter, sure. The city I live is actually best for cyclists IMO, given the deteriorating public transport and not enough parking space for cars.

Problem is the US is much more spread out than older countries.

Yup, I don't think it is really something we can fix easily. Or at all, frankly. So maybe it isn't that irrational, just acceptance of an unfortunate truth.

I think transportation improvements would be a much better use of resources--better rail systems, better public transport, etc--than a full-blown revamping of cities.

I'm definitely upset the high-speed rail that was planned in California failed. That would have been nice.

I don't want to be tolled or shot if I want to visit someone on the other side of the city.

I don't know why people freak out but when it comes to right wingers everything is evil from healthy school lunches to energy bulbs, and healthcare is like Hitler etc.

It'll never take off though, the design of cities is too cemented, only the wealthy will be able to afford housing in such areas.

It's a pipe dream that requires achieving zoning reform in suburbs and that means telling people whose wealth is tied to their home values that their suburban nest-egg will plummet when multi-occupancy housing and businesses are going to be build nearby. It means making housing affordable (pipe dream), available (pipe dream), good paying jobs plentiful and spread out to accommodate the people within a given area (another pipe dream).

We're 'Muricans, we won't demand massive reforms until some catastrophe demands it, but by then it'll be too late and economically, socially, politically unfeasible.

But it is a good idea, unfortunately SOME PEOPLE are why we can't have nice things, and they'll resist the idea kicking and screaming and waving their second amendment in everyone's faces and refuse to acquiesce except over their dead bodies and then when problems arise that could have been proactively avoided they'll blame everybody but themselves.

They are a good idea, even for car owners, a car is still allowed in 15 minute cities, however, they are no longer the only means to get around, which means people can use OTHER forms of transportation, which means less induced demand, which in turn means fewer cars and thus less traffic jams. There is a reason why drivers in the netherlands are very satisfied.

Following the destruction caused by WW2 here, a lot of our cities rebuilt around car infrastructure in mind. However, in the 90's, growing opposition under child safety started to take hold. And after the success the Netherlands has seen in phasing out the car (not getting rid of it entirely). Other nations have taken notice. 15 minutes in particular gained traction when a french town adopted the policy and saw massive success.

This is not a partisan political thing either. 15 minute cities and walkability is met with support across partisan lines. The french mayor I mentioned, was quite far right. But the ideas also resonated with Anne Hidalgo, a socialist.

@madrocketeer: I grew up In Hobart, Tasmania and it is very similar to New Zealand.