15 minute cities the future?

[renegademaster]

No one is stopping or planning to stop anyone from using anything further awa

Some localities are trying to make it more annoying to do so though , to incentivise the local option, I don't think anyone reasonable is claiming you will be outright prohibited. Not every critic of urban planning policies is a tinfoil conspiracy theorist

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2023 ==

It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that such areas already exist, and people have given examples. You simply shrugged it off and suggested that it's only a few "pockets" here and there. It absolutely does happen. You suggested in a previous post that those who came up with such schemes should get out more; may I suggest that you do the same, and you'll see what we're talking about?

Their exists neighborhoods that have grown organically that have everything in 15 minutes. That's different from developments planned out centered around keeping journeys under 15 minutes. The factors that allow you to maintain such facilities are often either out of the control of planners or ignored by them

 

[jon81uk]

For me this concept is just political fluff, and I don't care who I annoy by saying that. If we are really, really serious about getting people out of their cars more, then viable & affordable alternatives are needed. Can anyone here honestly say that aside from a few area in a few cities that public transport is up to this job? Because even in areas where there is a reasonable network, its often nowhere near enough to instigate modal shift, especially outside of traditional 9-5 working hours. For that to happen the government is going to have to invest heavily in further subsidising public transport not only to offer more capacity and prices that might make people actually consider changing, but have to swallow the fact that for a while that capacity might run have to run a lot loss for a while until it is given a good enough chance to be taken up.

Sort that lot out first and it may achieve way more than chucking this concept around.

The entire point of "chucking this concept around" is to shift focus to providing viable and affordable alternatives. One of the affordable alternatives is walking and one way to encourage more walking is ensuring that services are available within walking distance, hence the talk around 15 minute neighbourhoods!

 

[Bantamzen]

The entire point of "chucking this concept around" is to shift focus to providing viable and affordable alternatives. One of the affordable alternatives is walking and one way to encourage more walking is ensuring that services are available within walking distance, hence the talk around 15 minute neighbourhoods!

And how do you ensure they are available and affordable within that distance? For example there are plenty of supermarket branded local stores popping up all over the place, but are generally more expensive and with smaller ranges. I have three within a 15 minute walk of me, but I use them only occasionally, preferring to walk another 20 minutes beyond to an Aldi where prices are considerably cheaper. However as a result if I've done a big shop this will mean I'm not walking back (and I live alone). Thankfully for me so long as I time it right I can get a train back (so long as Northern don't cancel on me), or a bus with a 5-10 minute walk from the supermarket. However that choice may not exist for many households.

So what how would need to be done to ensure that reasonably priced supermarkets are available in that range, as opposed to the higher priced ones that are actually appearing?

 

[simonw]

There are two different ideas being shunted together in this thread. One is changing the road structure to reduce the use of cars in residential roads by, for example closing them to through traffic. Making them safer for pedestrians and potentially reducing local high levels of pollution. In principal this seems to me 'a good thing'

The second is the concept of 15 minute cities/towns/suburbs. This concept recognises that we have allowed the concentration of services in some of our towns and cities such that the use of a car is required to carry out the day to day activities we perform. Whether this is going to the shops, the Drs or whatever. Those advocating the 15 minute city are saying we should look again at how we plan and develop our towns and cities such that more things are more easily reached either by foot or public transport by more people.

It is not some conspiracy to trap people in their homes. Not is it something that will happen overnight, nor, can it happen everywhere e.g. Rural areas will need some other solution. However, I fail to see why people see it as 'a bad thing'.

 

[Richardr]

So what how would need to be done to ensure that reasonably priced supermarkets are available in that range, as opposed to the higher priced ones that are actually appearing?

Nothing.

The concept is that provision for local amenities is built in with planning. If no one uses them they will close down. No one is being forced to use anything - like you if you want to go further away fine.

The fact that most areas of anywhere with a certain number of residents have an increasing number of branded small supermarkets, as in your area, shows that at least a certain number of people value them and use them.

I still can't see why you are so against the concept of planning for a few amenities within 15 minutes of housing. It will benefit some, and not others. If it benefits enough, the amenities will stay, if no one uses them they will close down. Experience in recent years is that the likes of Tescos, Sainsburys, and Co-Op local stores see increased usage, hence their expansion in numbers. None of those chains are distraught if you would rather travel to a larger version a longer distance away.

 

[DarloRich]

SAGE didn't seem that reluctant did they? In fact they sounded almost disappointed when they didn't get their way in even more restrictions.

I don't want to derail this thread but it is important to state that SAGE ( Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are there to make recommendations to the government. SAGE is an advisory group and does not make decisions or set policy. Government considers a range of evidence when making decisions including economic, social, and broader environmental factors.

The way UK politics has played out this decade should demonstrate that pretty much anything can happen from here on in.

really? You think that a UK political party will bring in a law , outside of a dire emergency, telling you where and when to shop? Where and when to leave your home? Where you can and cant live? That seems outlandish.

Not everything is a conspiracy - not everything is connected.

I still can't see why you are so against the concept of planning for a few amenities within 15 minutes of housing. It will benefit some, and not others. If it benefits enough, the amenities will stay, if no one uses them they will close down. Experience in recent years is that the likes of Tescos, Sainsburys, and Co-Op local stores see increased usage, hence their expansion in numbers. None of those chains are distraught if you would rather travel to a larger version a longer distance away.

and, as i said previously, if you don't drive ( like me) and need something form one of these big stores ( as I often do despite having decent amenities within a short walk) you can easily have groceries delivered via any number of apps or routes. There is a different cost for each from free to a few £ but options are there.

The opposition to this seems overblown and seems linked to COVID based conspiracy actors.

 

[GusB]

I have three within a 15 minute walk of me, but I use them only occasionally, preferring to walk another 20 minutes beyond to an Aldi where prices are considerably cheaper. However as a result if I've done a big shop this will mean I'm not walking back (and I live alone). Thankfully for me so long as I time it right I can get a train back (so long as Northern don't cancel on me), or a bus with a 5-10 minute walk from the supermarket. However that choice may not exist for many households.

So you've just admitted that it is possible to live in an area that has amenities within a 15 minute walk! You've also just illustrated that you have a choice and that you exercise that choice by opting to go slightly further afield because it's cheaper. However, you still have the option to shop more locally if you so desire. Not everyone is going to be physically capable of walking that extra 20 minutes and not everyone has a car, so those local places will be vital to some.

I have two convenience stores within a ten minute walk. I don't do my weekly shopping there for precisely the reasons that you've outlined - it's cheaper for me to drive into town once a fortnight, get everything in one go and drive home again. However, if I run out of milk or if there's something I've forgotten, I'll quite happily walk to one of the local shops and buy it there. Is it more expensive? Yes, it can be for certain items, but I value the convenience of having the nearby option and I'm also supporting two independent business owners when they're finding it quite tough in the current climate.

 

[Bantamzen]

Nothing.

The concept is that provision for local amenities is built in with planning. If no one uses them they will close down. No one is being forced to use anything - like you if you want to go further away fine.

The fact that most areas of anywhere with a certain number of residents have an increasing number of branded small supermarkets, as in your area, shows that at least a certain number of people value them and use them.

I still can't see why you are so against the concept of planning for a few amenities within 15 minutes of housing. It will benefit some, and not others. If it benefits enough, the amenities will stay, if no one uses them they will close down. Experience in recent years is that the likes of Tescos, Sainsburys, and Co-Op local stores see increased usage, hence their expansion in numbers. None of those chains are distraught if you would rather travel to a larger version a longer distance away.

It may be in planning regs, but in reality it does it really happen? I know of at least one in my area where it didn't, ironically it would have put a Morrisions local within 5 minutes walk of my house. However, and this is an important point as that brand is now one of the three from me but further away than planned, it is still far more expensive to shop there than the large supermarket branch 3 or so miles away.

I don't want to derail this thread but it is important to state that SAGE ( Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are there to make recommendations to the government. SAGE is an advisory group and does not make decisions or set policy. Government considers a range of evidence when making decisions including economic, social, and broader environmental factors.

really? You think that a UK political party will bring in a law , outside of a dire emergency, telling you where and when to shop? Where and when to leave your home? Where you can and cant live? That seems outlandish.

Not everything is a conspiracy - not everything is connected.

In 2019 if I said to you within a year we would be told to stay at home, many businesses would be closed and police would be out and about following walkers in Derbyshire with drones, or stopping people cross county borders in the middle of moorland, or people would have to queue in the rain standing on 2m separated markers to buy their groceries, you'd be saying exactly the same to me.

As I said earlier, I have never said that the concept of 15 minute cities was designed to apply any kind of restrictions. But what's to keep a future government from declaring a nationwide climate emergency / crisis / apocalypse, then using similar legislation to the covid stuff? I'm not saying it will happen, but politicians got a taste of what they could do back in 2020, that's a political memory that won't entirely go away. Basically what I am saying is I don't trust politicians with this kind of stuff any more. It would potentially much easier to try to limit what and where people do stuff, be it directly or indirectly, than actually getting to the bottom and solving the reasons why most people don't walk or more importantly use public transport.

Call it conspiracy if you want, I just call it a cynical response to actual events.

So you've just admitted that it is possible to live in an area that has amenities within a 15 minute walk! You've also just illustrated that you have a choice and that you exercise that choice by opting to go slightly further afield because it's cheaper. However, you still have the option to shop more locally if you so desire. Not everyone is going to be physically capable of walking that extra 20 minutes and not everyone has a car, so those local places will be vital to some.

I've said there are amities that are far more expensive. This is a crucial point.

I have two convenience stores within a ten minute walk. I don't do my weekly shopping there for precisely the reasons that you've outlined - it's cheaper for me to drive into town once a fortnight, get everything in one go and drive home again. However, if I run out of milk or if there's something I've forgotten, I'll quite happily walk to one of the local shops and buy it there. Is it more expensive? Yes, it can be for certain items, but I value the convenience of having the nearby option and I'm also supporting two independent business owners when they're finding it quite tough in the current climate.

Yes there may be amenities close by, but they are too expensive to be able to buy the bulk of your shopping, which for the most part is always going to be true of local retailers. They have neither the buying power or space to be able to compete with larger retailers or stores, and if that doesn't change then they will still be the first choice.

 

[jon81uk]

Yes there may be amenities close by, but they are too expensive to be able to buy the bulk of your shopping, which for the most part is always going to be true of local retailers. They have neither the buying power or space to be able to compete with larger retailers or stores, and if that doesn't change then they will still be the first choice.

But that has been normal for 50 years. The concept of doing the "big shop" at the weekend at the larger store and top up shops in the smaller stores is nothing new.
The idea is to try and ensure people don't need to use the car for their top up shops. Or that they don't need the car for the school run.

Its about ensuring more things are within walking distance and that sensible public transport is available for other options. In your previous post you stated you walk to Aldi but can get the bus or train home. That is a good thing and more of that is also needed, as well as having the smaller shops closer.

 

[renegademaster]

It is not some conspiracy to trap people in their homes.

Nobody in this thread is claiming this

 

[Enthusiast]

However low traffic schemes are not what this thread is discussing, so your conversation is probably better on another thread.

Very possibly - if I'd mentioned low traffic schemes. But I didn't.

This thread is discussing "15 minute cities". The point I raised is that even if they could be devised in sufficient numbers (which is unlikely in the extreme) what happens when many people don't fall in line with the concept (which is very probable)?

My view, based on what many environmental campaigners have opined, is that when the "carrots" (having most things available within 15 minutes) fail to produce the desired results they will be replaced with "sticks" (having to have an acceptable reason to be driving around in such places). Your idea that drivers will be free to drive, it just may take them a little longer, will simply produce more pollution (as journeys will take longer) and very quickly they will not be tolerated.

If you believe that's fanciful, you need only look at the "Future of Aviation" thread, where there are contributors who advocate, quite unequivocally, the cessation of civil aviation. Nothing is off the table for these people.

 

[jon81uk]

Very possibly - if I'd mentioned low traffic schemes. But I didn't.

This thread is discussing "15 minute cities". The point I raised is that even if they could be devised in sufficient numbers (which is unlikely in the extreme) what happens when many people don't fall in line with the concept (which is very probable)?

My view, based on what many environmental campaigners have opined, is that when the "carrots" (having most things available within 15 minutes) fail to produce the desired results they will be replaced with "sticks" (having to have an acceptable reason to be driving around in such places). Your idea that drivers will be free to drive, it just may take them a little longer, will simply produce more pollution (as journeys will take longer) and very quickly they will not be tolerated.

If you believe that's fanciful, you need only look at the "Future of Aviation" thread, where there are contributors who advocate, quite unequivocally, the cessation of civil aviation. Nothing is off the table for these people.

You brought up the use of “sticks” which is things like low traffic schemes, or congestion charge or other methods of restricting car movement.

This thread is about the “carrot” making it easier to avoid driving by increasing availability of public transportation walking and cycling to nearby services.

 

[Bantamzen]

But that has been normal for 50 years. The concept of doing the "big shop" at the weekend at the larger store and top up shops in the smaller stores is nothing new.
The idea is to try and ensure people don't need to use the car for their top up shops. Or that they don't need the car for the school run.

Its about ensuring more things are within walking distance and that sensible public transport is available for other options. In your previous post you stated you walk to Aldi but can get the bus or train home. That is a good thing and more of that is also needed, as well as having the smaller shops closer.

 

[HSTEd]

This thread is about the “carrot” making it easier to avoid driving by increasing availability of public transportation walking and cycling to nearby services.

The problem is that that model isn't going to work without massive subsidies or coercion, given the inherent inferiority of the dispersed services it depends on.
The shops will have worse selection and higher prices, other services will require huge subsidies to survive given the inherently restricted customer bases and the loss of crucial economies of scale.

Someone will have to pay for the thousands, or tens of thousands, of otherwise unnecessary staff. The government will either have to pay or force other people to pay more for the services to cover these costs.

If you really want to reduce shopping etc related carbon emissions through application of public money, you would pour money into subsidising supermarket deliveries which have far lower carbon emissions than conventional shopping.
You wouldn't try to recreate some Halycon high street experience from the 1950s which was only sustained by an underclass living in grinding poverty

 

[SynthD]

If the supermarkets were purely focused on efficiency they would only have mega stores. But they don’t, we see mini shops on the local high streets. They are already doing what you say they won’t. They meet customer demand to be within 15 minutes.

 

[jon81uk]

The problem is that that model isn't going to work without massive subsidies or coercion, given the inherent inferiority of the dispersed services it depends on.
The shops will have worse selection and higher prices, other services will require huge subsidies to survive given the inherently restricted customer bases and the loss of crucial economies of scale.

Someone will have to pay for the thousands, or tens of thousands, of otherwise unnecessary staff. The government will either have to pay or force other people to pay more for the services to cover these costs.

If you really want to reduce shopping etc related carbon emissions through application of public money, you would pour money into subsidising supermarket deliveries which have far lower carbon emissions than conventional shopping.
You wouldn't try to recreate some Halycon high street experience from the 1950s which was only sustained by an underclass living in grinding poverty

Note I used the word services not shops. Doctor, dentist, bus stop, primary school, pharmacy, barbers, hairdressers, nail salon, fish and chip shop, pizza delivery, Chinese takeaway, pub, restaurant, are all other things that are commonly available within 15 minute neighbourhoods, not just convenience stores.

It’s not about one high street in a town centre but smaller clusters of services.

 

[HSTEd]

Note I used the word services not shops. Doctor, dentist, bus stop, primary school, pharmacy, barbers, hairdressers, nail salon, fish and chip shop, pizza delivery, Chinese takeaway, pub, restaurant, are all other things that are commonly available within 15 minute neighbourhoods, not just convenience stores.

It’s not about one high street in a town centre but smaller clusters of services.

The problem with this is that those other services almost all have the same fundamental scale problems.

Even today there is something like one pub per 2600 people and that average population is increasing by about 4% per annum. The trends driving that are only likely to drive this rate higher.

Delivery based food facilities have also been concentrating rapidly in recent years. They are overwhelminglu dependent on scale, hence transitioning to "dark kitchen" models where food is prepared near major transport arteries to allow rapid distribution. The economic optimum for a pizza delivery place is likely covering a population catchment of tens of thousands of people.

The reality is that without either driving population densities into the stratosphere, massive subsidies, a vast underclass living in poverty or a combination of the above, most of these businesses cannot be sustained on this basis.

 

[GusB]

The problem with this is that those other services almost all have the same fundamental scale problems.

Even today there is something like one pub per 2600 people and that average population is increasing by about 4% per annum. The trends driving that are only likely to drive this rate higher.

All we're talking about here is having a few business units within a housing estate that provide facilities for local people to use, and that create a few jobs along the way. We're not talking about employing the whole population of the area.

We already have housing estates that have small clusters of business units within them.

Delivery based food facilities have also been concentrating rapidly in recent years. They are overwhelminglu dependent on scale, hence transitioning to "dark kitchen" models where food is prepared near major transport arteries to allow rapid distribution. The economic optimum for a pizza delivery place is likely covering a population catchment of tens of thousands of people.

"Dark kitchens"? While this happens in certain areas, it does not apply to my local Chinese takeaway, or the pizza and kebab shops that I regularly purchase from.

The reality is that without either driving population densities into the stratosphere, massive subsidies, a vast underclass living in poverty or a combination of the above, most of these businesses cannot be sustained on this basis.

Oh, stop it. Seriously, just stop now. This is absolute tosh.

 

[Richardr]

Very possibly - if I'd mentioned low traffic schemes. But I didn't.

This thread is discussing "15 minute cities". The point I raised is that even if they could be devised in sufficient numbers (which is unlikely in the extreme) what happens when many people don't fall in line with the concept (which is very probable)?

My view, based on what many environmental campaigners have opined, is that when the "carrots" (having most things available within 15 minutes) fail to produce the desired results they will be replaced with "sticks" (having to have an acceptable reason to be driving around in such places). Your idea that drivers will be free to drive, it just may take them a little longer, will simply produce more pollution (as journeys will take longer) and very quickly they will not be tolerated.

If you believe that's fanciful, you need only look at the "Future of Aviation" thread, where there are contributors who advocate, quite unequivocally, the cessation of civil aviation. Nothing is off the table for these people.

Your comment is the same as coming on here and attacking any new rail investment, saying it will lead to the "sticks" of stopping driving.

Neither is remotely likely, but each one is independent of the other.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2023 ==

The problem is that that model isn't going to work without massive subsidies or coercion, given the inherent inferiority of the dispersed services it depends on.
The shops will have worse selection and higher prices, other services will require huge subsidies to survive given the inherently restricted customer bases and the loss of crucial economies of scale.

Someone will have to pay for the thousands, or tens of thousands, of otherwise unnecessary staff. The government will either have to pay or force other people to pay more for the services to cover these costs.

If you really want to reduce shopping etc related carbon emissions through application of public money, you would pour money into subsidising supermarket deliveries which have far lower carbon emissions than conventional shopping.
You wouldn't try to recreate some Halycon high street experience from the 1950s which was only sustained by an underclass living in grinding poverty

Or the model isn't going to work full stop. So what?

No one is going to pay huge subsidies, indeed the concept is not related to public money. Examples have been given of shops that do work with a smaller number of potential customers, and if anything they are increasing in numbers, e.g. the Sainsbury / Tesco / Co-op locals. There have always been shops / doctors / chemists, etc serving smaller populations - the intention is to ensure that these are included in the planning of clusters of housing. If individual shops or other services fail as you think, they will close. Others think otherwise, but time will tell.

 

[HSTEd]

All we're talking about here is having a few business units within a housing estate that provide facilities for local people to use, and that create a few jobs along the way. We're not talking about employing the whole population of the area.

We already have housing estates that have small clusters of business units within them.

The trend, at least in my anecdotal experience, has been for those units to end up slowly closing down and being converted into housing.
I don't see any reason for this trend not to continue, so I question whether it is really reasonable to build these units given the apparent lack of future for them.

We already have a major oversupply of commercial floor space, and the high streets in even comparatively large towns are dying.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2023 ==

Or the model isn't going to work full stop. So what?

Because our society will have spent valuable resources and political capital building empty industrial or commercial units instead of houses that will actually be useful to the population.
Given our crippling housing shortage, every commercial unit put on a housing estate is one or more families left essentially homeless.

Even if the Government is not directly paying for them, society still is, because someone has to! They don't just spring into existance with zero costs.

 

[dm1]

I'll just leave this here. More of a North American context, but many of the arguments made are just as applicable in the UK.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I'll just leave this here. More of a North American context, but many of the arguments made are just as applicable in the UK.

Canada is probably the worst country to use to show a lack of government control.

Saying you need a licence and MOT to drive is government control kinds loses you credibility