1.3. Interpretative Remarks

1.3. Interpretative Remarks

To sum up, Moreno has proposed that all identified functions of working, living, caring, enjoying, learning, and supplying should be availed to the urban residents within 15 minutes. The time saved in commute can be then utilised for other creative production or leisure, while also helping cities reduce transport emissions from reduced commute. In spatial planning terms, the emphasis in FMC should be on accessibility and proximity rather than mobility and shall be availed by strong community engagements practices. The cities should be planned based on the principles of density, proximity, diversity, and digitalization. The FMC concept suggests a decentralised city where the zoning segregations of cities into residential and work centres are dissolved and rather a network of the optimally dense, mixed use ‘15-minute neighbourhoods with priority to slow mobility modes i.e. walking/ biking appear. He proposes these principles shall re-establish the missing solidarity and social links among urban dwellers. To advance it further, cities should also be planned according to not just space but also time, Moreno puts forward the temporal measure to urban planning and suggests that every square meter area in the cities should be put to multi-functional use as per the requirements of the residents which shall increase the social connections among the residents. Thus, urging planners to rethink changing social policies of using buildings and public spaces especially in areas where resources are limited, while promoting Design of buildings and urban spaces through form based codes rather than land uses. (Moreno, 2021 as cited in Petzer Brett, 2021)

He also promotes sharing economy and digitalization of services and planning procedures to reduce the unnecessary commutes. The proponent hypotheses that the spatial manifestation of the concept shall override the commute time and long-distance trips, thus eventually reduce automobile-based transport and therefore cities shall be able to achieve the goals of reducing carbon emissions. Although the research articles and published books do not specify the application of the concept is suitable for new cities or existing cities, however, in the online webinars (See for example, Ferri et al., 2020; Florida et al., 2020; Sassen et al., 2021) the proponents imply that existing cities can use the 15 minute city framework to transform existing cities, by redefining the public commons. However, it should be highlighted that the concepts of Density, diversity, proximity and digitalization are not new, rather are defined as normative design concepts (Ewing & Cervero, 2010). Yet, the proponents claim that the ‘key is to redefine the common goods’ should imply to re-planning and redefining all of the planning since urban planning is, by definition, planning of common goods (and not private goods) (Lefebvre, 1967) Moreover, Moreno has also compared his concept with 20-minute city article of Capasso Da Silva, et al. (2019) and emphasis that the latter only focuses on accessibility to opportunities (jobs) and does not emphasise on social interactions and participation of urban communities. Moreno suggests his concept overrides the later by its strong advocacy for proximity.

Commenting on the 5-minute difference between his 15 minute city and Capasso Da Silva’s 20 minute city, he points out that the difference means that

‘’amenities shall be placed Further away from each other and thus consume more land. More resources shall be required to implement that planning model.’’ (Moreno et, al. p.98).

These statements about the difference in 15–20-minute city and it resultant urban form of the city stands in contrast to his statement in the same research paper,

‘’It is noteworthy that while the concept of “chrono-urbanism” may seem arbitrary for some—e.g., why 15 min and not 17 min?—this concept is not rigid in nature and is proposed with the intent to be tailored to individual cities based on both their morphology and specific needs and characteristics.’’ (Moreno et al., 2021, p. 106)

Thus inconsistencies are observed in the proponents communication, which may lead to individual interpretations of the concept due to the very subjective nature of time component. The proponent’s promotion of access in time (read, subjective time) clashes with the practice of urban planning which concerns with the planning of ‘social’ time turning the planning upside down (Charbgoo & Mareggi, 2018; Ewing & Cervero, 2010).

The following chapter shall highlight different perspectives and opinions shared by various experts in planning regarding the various components of the 15-minute city.