Why are some opposing 15-minute cities?

India was termed as a reluctant urbaniser. This notion is changing and it is changing really fast. The country is trying and testing every popular concept in urbanisation and sees if it fits the local context and needs. The concept of 15-minute city has gained traction in urban planning discourse globally as well as in India. More recently, the concept seems to have divided people into factions fighting for and against the idea

What is a 15-minute city?

First things first, what is a 15-minute city? A short and crisp reply could be: a city where people get access to everything, almost every essential service and facility like workspace, grocery stores, business centres, and hospitals in a 15-minute trip. Your next question could be “is it by driving, walking or using public transport?” Fair enough. It depends how have its planners conceptualised.

It sounds exciting, convenient and comforting. You ask anyone travelling

Wfrom Noida to Gurgaon or for that matter from Thane to Mumbai for work and spending hours in wee hours traffic or in trains. We spend hours commuting to work, school, or hospitals, navigating congested roads and inadequate public transport systems. They will say a 15-minute city could be the best solution to urban woes. Less time in traffic and more time for. And, if you look at smaller cities, it becomes more difficult to access certain services including specialised medical care facility or a university. We have seen people’s struggle during the pandemic. Such a concept will make life easier for urban residents. It offers a way to alleviate these problems by enabling more livable, sustainable, and resilient urban environment. Urban Local Bodies will be able to work more efficiently as they have to serve, improvise services and infrastructure in a focussed coverage area. By focusing on the needs of local residents and designing neighborhoods that prioritize walking, cycling, and public transport, cities can reduce reliance on cars and create more vibrant and connected communities. In addition to reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and improving the quality of life for inhabitants, the model encourages a decentralised city and a modal shift away from private vehicles.

Carlos Moreno, a Professor at Panthéon Sorbonne University in Paris came up with the idea of 15-minute cities as an alternate urban planning model in 2015. Moreno even won the Obel Award in 2021, an international architecture prize with the mission of influencing architecture as a whole to further the common good, where it was described as “a real step towards the future – a bold and needed perspective.” The idea has received appreciation

We have witnessed that communities with strong local networks and wellequipped hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies are better able to respond to health crises and protect their residents. The concept of 15-minute cities has the potential to improve the health, well-being, and economic prosperity of their constituents. It is also true that there are immense environmental benefits. But we have to ensure that will serve the purpose of building cities-opportunities for one and all. Or, it will end up creating silos from many quarters of the urban sector. Some cities have even implemented the model. For instance, in Paris, Mayor Anne Hidalgo made this a part of her reelection campaign in 2020. Moreno told The New York Times, “First, the rhythm of the city should follow humans, not cars. Second, each square metre should serve many different purposes. Finally, neighbourhoods should be designed so that we can live, work and thrive in them without having to constantly commute elsewhere.”

What a fantastic idea. Hail to such a brilliant idea! Right! But, wait! Don’t be in hurry. There is a twist.

What is the problem? There is a flip side to the story.

THe FLIP SIDe

Some socialists and economists, including British MPs, are citing concern over its social feasibility and economic impact. They have fears that such cities will not be inclusive. There is also the risk of creating ghettos. The land prices, already skyrocketing in cities, will go further north. The affordability will be a concern.

Another concern is that it might limit people’s choices. People will have to stick to only available choices on a day-to-day basis. The underlying statement is to consume what is available. Job opportunities or choice of doing business will be limited. Only a couple of people can get engaged in one business or service industry. It can also result in making the city less vibrant as neighbourhoods could become more homogenous resulting in less cultural exchange between diverse social groups. These cities will also be not welcoming because to accommodate more people, the city would have to make provisions of infrastructure and services.

While the idea of 15-minute cities has valid pros and cons, the sudden rise of conspiracy theories surrounding it is puzzling. Some of the more extreme views of people bordering on paranoia are coming from Oxford in United Kingdom where the idea is being compared to “climate lockdowns”, “digital open prison”, “cute authoritarianism” and

“socialist/stalinist attempt to control the population.” People are even taking to the streets and protests are being held against the implementation of 15-minute cities. The hysteria could have its roots in a deep-seated fear among people of lockdowns imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restricted movement had given many authoritarian governments an excuse to put oppressive measures on people. An innocuous planning model has become the centre of a war between the left and the right, which is a digression from the main issue. Is this a viable solution for all cities?

THe ROAD AHeAD

There are always two sides of every story. Cities need to weigh the available options.

We have witnessed that communities with strong local networks and wellequipped hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies are better able to respond to health crises and protect their residents. The concept of 15-minute cities has the potential to improve the health, well-being, and economic prosperity of their constituents. It is also true that there are immense environmental benefits. But we have to ensure that will serve the purpose of building citiesopportunities for one and all. Or, it will end up creating silos.

It is true that transitioning to a 15-minute city will require significant investment in infrastructure, planning, and design. But the benefits of such a transition are manifold. By reducing car dependency, we can lower air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, improve public health, and create jobs in the green economy. By creating more vibrant and connected communities, we can boost local economies and promote social cohesion.

Furthermore, the 15-minute city concept is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It can be adapted to suit the unique needs and contexts of different cities and neighborhoods. The key is to engage with local communities, listen to their needs and concerns, and design solutions that work for them.