5.1. Creating ‘proximity city’ starting from Neighbourhoods and people
The initials findings and synthesis show that the cities are transitioning from car centric cities to match the ideals of ‘compact’ and ‘Networked city’ long established in theoretical discourse. ‘Compact city’ and ‘Networked urban system’ is also adopted across various cities in the western world, especially in European context. (Hall & Pain, 2012) The cities have adopted different visions to achieve these theoretical ideals depending on various local issues and future goals. For example, Portland envisions an equitable city and address the issue of inequality and racial segregation that exist and is increasing at an alarming rate. Melbourne is focussing on creating a ‘healthy’ city arising primarily due to lifestyle preferences of its population and car-oriented behaviour of people. On the other hand, Paris intends to increase social cohesion and reduce isolation in the city. Overall, these the underlying agenda of these cities is to make a more ‘liveable’ city. To achieve these ‘local’ visions, these global cities have emphasised on walking and biking as the priority mode of access in cities. While Moreno doesn’t differentiate between these slow modes, the cities have defined walking as a primary mode of transport. It is justified since ‘walking’ is most equitable mode of transport. Overall, slow modes of transport have many co-benefits such as social cohesion, health of citizens, reducing environmental pollution, cost reduction on infrastructure provision, etc. (Claris et al., 2016) In this bigger scheme of cities, FMC is a policy related to creating compact (dense), integrated (connected to public transit) and walkable neighbourhoods. Cities are treating ‘proximity (by walk)’ under the bigger umbrella of ‘Sustainable access’. Thus, from these observations, we can now reinterpret the statement of FMC, from,
‘Providing people everything within 15 minutes by walk or bike, to, ‘Providing access to (basic) amenities and services within 15/20-minute walk (neighbourhoods) to all citizens’
This reinterpretation aligns with the ‘Arguments in favour’ described in chapter 2. The Rhetoric’s claim of ‘by providing amenities and services close to people, we can reduce commute’ is well embraced and supported in the planning fraternity. For example, Ewing & Cervero (2010) in their study of time and built environments concluded that provision of high-quality amenities in neighbourhoods helps promote walkability and reduces commute thereby increasing liveability of people and reducing pollution. Moreover, Barbé (2014), giving the example of Grand Paris region states that only 30% of car trips are job related and there has been an increase in non-job trips overall. Anyways, it is obvious from looking at the case studies and the restricted role of ‘FMC Rhetoric’ which is limited only to neighbourhoods, that this issue is more inclined towards
108
