Thanks John, I appreciate the argument and enjoy and appreciate your podcast. I'd suggest a needed nuance to how you framed the first section, though. There are really two questions, that felt a bit conflated:
1. What kind of place do we want to live in?
2. Who gets to decide?
Suburbia, for example, with its domination by big developers and chain stores, is just as much a result of central planning as a brutalist high-rise. It has to be, because there's no way for a neighborhood to artificially spread out human life on that kind of scale. Whereas the fifteen-minute community is the kind of place humans in small neighborhoods have decided to live in for literally all of history until the early to mid-twentieth century.
The 15-minute community idea it wasn't cooked up by central planners. It was cooked up by people trying to win back their neighborhoods from central planners so they could make them beautiful again. The fact that some people, whose imagination only stretches as far as central planning, decided they liked the idea isn't the fault of the idea. If you're not familiar with the work of Strong Towns, they're worth a look regarding these topics.
Suggested reading: “Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World” by Henry Graber. We have given up far too much to the automobile in the US. Just back to my small, pedestrian friendly city in the mountains of Central Mexico after a month in Madrid, Granada, and Cordoba. Cities keenly aware (as is so much of Europe) of the importance of car-free urban spaces and excellent public transportation.
Thoughtful comment, Brian, and I agree with the distinction between “what kind of place do we want?” and “who decides?” That’s an important nuance often missing from these discussions.
I’d just push back a bit on the idea that suburbia was purely imposed while “15-minute cities” are purely organic. (Unless I interpreted your comment incorrectly) Postwar suburbia was heavily shaped by state policy (FHA policy, zoning, highway/road lobby, eminent domain, etc) yes, but it also reflected genuine consumer preferences for space, privacy, quieter neighborhoods, and detached housing once technology made that possible.
Likewise, compact mixed-use communities existed organically throughout history, but the modern “15-minute city” concept is also now tied to contemporary planning institutions, zoning reforms, infrastructure redesigns, and behavioral-shaping policies. So both models involve some mix of organic preference and top-down influence.
I also think we sometimes romanticize pre-automobile urban life a bit too much. Dense historical cities were often compact because people lacked alternatives, not necessarily because density was universally preferred.
That said, I agree Strong Towns raises valuable questions about the sustainability of municipal finance model, infrastructure incentives, and the unintended consequences of large-scale planning. they’re also an advocacy organization with their own ideological assumptions about how humans “should” live.
Tangentially related to urban central planning and fifteen minute cities is the concept of Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a goal set mainly by cities but sometimes other governments to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero.
How is this done? By using anointed “engineers” to “redesign” city streets and roads with the belief that (mainly) motorists will behave properly and safely. This ideology is largely where “road diets,” removal of on-street parking and sometimes even motor vehicle access, “transit-oriented development”, and so-called “protected” bike lanes get pushed. None of these are necessary bad on their own and may be useful in certain contexts but the ideology itself shapes to completely reshape urban areas.
While there is a place for road design and motorist behavior (narrow lanes tend to slow down motor traffic, roundabouts often result in less severe collisions than standard signalized intersections, etc) the belief that the public rights of way can be completely reengineered to stamp out all traffic related collisions (Nevermind many of them are the faults of non-motorists such as pedestrians and bicyclists engaging in risky or illegal behavior) is well overblown.
Outstanding.
Thanks John, I appreciate the argument and enjoy and appreciate your podcast. I'd suggest a needed nuance to how you framed the first section, though. There are really two questions, that felt a bit conflated:
1. What kind of place do we want to live in?
2. Who gets to decide?
Suburbia, for example, with its domination by big developers and chain stores, is just as much a result of central planning as a brutalist high-rise. It has to be, because there's no way for a neighborhood to artificially spread out human life on that kind of scale. Whereas the fifteen-minute community is the kind of place humans in small neighborhoods have decided to live in for literally all of history until the early to mid-twentieth century.
The 15-minute community idea it wasn't cooked up by central planners. It was cooked up by people trying to win back their neighborhoods from central planners so they could make them beautiful again. The fact that some people, whose imagination only stretches as far as central planning, decided they liked the idea isn't the fault of the idea. If you're not familiar with the work of Strong Towns, they're worth a look regarding these topics.
Suggested reading: “Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World” by Henry Graber. We have given up far too much to the automobile in the US. Just back to my small, pedestrian friendly city in the mountains of Central Mexico after a month in Madrid, Granada, and Cordoba. Cities keenly aware (as is so much of Europe) of the importance of car-free urban spaces and excellent public transportation.
Thoughtful comment, Brian, and I agree with the distinction between “what kind of place do we want?” and “who decides?” That’s an important nuance often missing from these discussions.
I’d just push back a bit on the idea that suburbia was purely imposed while “15-minute cities” are purely organic. (Unless I interpreted your comment incorrectly) Postwar suburbia was heavily shaped by state policy (FHA policy, zoning, highway/road lobby, eminent domain, etc) yes, but it also reflected genuine consumer preferences for space, privacy, quieter neighborhoods, and detached housing once technology made that possible.
Likewise, compact mixed-use communities existed organically throughout history, but the modern “15-minute city” concept is also now tied to contemporary planning institutions, zoning reforms, infrastructure redesigns, and behavioral-shaping policies. So both models involve some mix of organic preference and top-down influence.
I also think we sometimes romanticize pre-automobile urban life a bit too much. Dense historical cities were often compact because people lacked alternatives, not necessarily because density was universally preferred.
That said, I agree Strong Towns raises valuable questions about the sustainability of municipal finance model, infrastructure incentives, and the unintended consequences of large-scale planning. they’re also an advocacy organization with their own ideological assumptions about how humans “should” live.
Thanks John! Love your work.
Tangentially related to urban central planning and fifteen minute cities is the concept of Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a goal set mainly by cities but sometimes other governments to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero.
How is this done? By using anointed “engineers” to “redesign” city streets and roads with the belief that (mainly) motorists will behave properly and safely. This ideology is largely where “road diets,” removal of on-street parking and sometimes even motor vehicle access, “transit-oriented development”, and so-called “protected” bike lanes get pushed. None of these are necessary bad on their own and may be useful in certain contexts but the ideology itself shapes to completely reshape urban areas.
While there is a place for road design and motorist behavior (narrow lanes tend to slow down motor traffic, roundabouts often result in less severe collisions than standard signalized intersections, etc) the belief that the public rights of way can be completely reengineered to stamp out all traffic related collisions (Nevermind many of them are the faults of non-motorists such as pedestrians and bicyclists engaging in risky or illegal behavior) is well overblown.
https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/vision-zero-as-an-anointed-utopian?utm_source=publication-search