15 minute cities coming to your area soon

Hardly anyone shops like that anymore though, what you would actually need is a large Tesco etc in each area. I havent been to a butcher (for example) in about 20 years.

Almost every city in Europe that is more than 100 years old already has 15 minute neighbourhoods (not saying all areas are so). London, of course, is pretty much nothing but. If you live in Hackney, you’ve no need to go to Richmond, or even Haringey, for your daily needs.

I think it’s important to stress that this is about daily needs. Most people don’t need a health centre or dentist, for example, every day. So you might have a health centre that covered two or three ‘zones’ which was still within walking or cycling distance for most people, but good public transport for those who can’t (although driving will still be possible, of course) manage that or who don’t drive.

And yes, shopping patterns would change. And retailers would adapt, as they always have. With careful planning, and appropriate housing density, you could have maybe three grocers, couple of greengrocers, bakeries and butchers, a hardware shop, a bookshop, a florist, a newsagent, a deli or two which doubled as cafes, a pub or two, and a couple of restaurants. Local communities would determine what else. But the aim is 70 -80% local shopping, the rest being town centre/retail park.

What needs to change in the UK for this type of concept to work are

- the planning system which has evolved to separate work and living spaces, forcing travel onto people who could work locally. I understand why it happened in the case of heavy industry, but it is arguably unnecessary for most types of work.
- the massive underinvestment in public transport, and privatisation that has led to fragmented urban services (be worth watching Manchester now transport is back under public control)
- urban density, and many British people’s attitude to it.

As I said at the start, I think the test of these ideas, which strike me as quite sensible, will be in their implementation - and this, I think, is where they will fall down.

To get these schemes running effectively requires a major redesign of the urban townscape, with smaller shops, more and smaller doctor's surgeries and the recreation of the shopping centres of the past.

I think there will never be enough government funding for all the major infrastruction necessary to make them work properly. Does anyone really believe the NHS will be funded to run lots of smaller GP practices rather than big medical centres? Will central hospitals be willing to centre more services on community hospitals? Will residents be happy with smaller less well stocked local supermarkets?

Or will the NHS at local and national level just say that now we can do everything online, local surgeries are not necessary. Will supermarkets stick to their current pattern of small local shops. knowing people would still rather go to the big supermarket on the outskirts for most of their shopping.

And will private cars be replaced by fleets of delivery vans?

Witzend Oxford, like Sheffield, have agreed to a 15 minute city plan, which has a very long - over 20 years - lead in time. Totally agree about new mini-towns with no shops or other infrastructure. They are the kind of urban sprawl, car dependent places that 15 minute cities and similar initiatives should prevent.

MaggsMcG

Most of the councils that are signing up to this are actually Labour run or a mixture of Labour and others (Green, Liberal or independent). Its a breach of civil liberties. What if you have relations living in another town or completely, what if they need your help at least once or twice a week and also in emergencies. You couldn't do that with 100 passes and thats 100 passes a household not a person. Its Big Brother in control start that and it wont be long before we are all expected to use digital currency and have no control over our finances either. Also will be controlled on who can buy a car or a new TV or even a bigger house.

1. There is nothing in the Oxford traffic scheme (which is not part of their 15 minute city plans) or in any of the proposed 15/20 minute city ideas that stops people driving as often and as far as they like. They just, in the case of Oxford, have to avoid 6 high traffic pinchpoints between 7am and 7pm on days they don’t have a permit for.

2. Which of your civil liberties are breached by having shops, parks, healthcare, playgrounds, schools, and cafes within a 15 - 20 minute walk?

growstuff

Dickens I'm cynical about it happening too, which is why I said that it's aspirational.

Nevertheless, when new developments are planned, I think the accessibility of facilities should be considered.

There are millions of people in the UK who live in modern housing developments. Very often there aren't any shops, schools, healthcare facilities, swimming pools, leisure centres, vets, village halls, nurseries, parks and playgrounds etc etc within miles.

It's very difficult for communities to develop in such places and people are forced to have cars. The lack of facilities also means there is no local work, so people have to commute.

I don't know why it's become a topical issue because I read about the idea years ago. I don't really understand why it's been hijacked by people who think it's some kind of conspiracy.

Just outside the ring road in Oxford, not far from where dd1 lives, there’s a huge new development of hundreds of houses and flats ( all pricey, but that’s Oxford for you.). There is a very nice new school, where I’ve taken Gdcs for ‘hip hop’ after school, and lovely outside space and a children’s playground - but AFAIk there is not so much as a corner shop - and it’d be a very long walk to get to one.

And from what I’ve seen recently they’re building even more homes on the formerly greenfield site.

Doodledog

*What we need is better, frequent, affordable public transport*.

I'll vote for that, but I wouldn't have voted for Mussolini .

I'm still at a loss to see the right wing connection. Can anyone please explain without just repeating the accusation?

Yes, I'm not getting it either.

I just ignored it.

MaggsMcG is there nothing you like about the idea? Wouldn't you like shops to be within 15 minutes walk? Or to have your grandchildren be able to walk or cycle to school?

Why are you looking for potential problems in order to rubbish the whole idea? There's absolutely no reason why every such scheme has to be implemented in exactly the same way. It would always be tailored to local needs. How common are the situations where relatives are in another town and need help from one particular individual? What kind of help is it that only one particular relative can deliver, that can't be dealt with by somebody closer? If that relative is so dependent why are they living in different towns? Schemes can be adapted for exceptional cases. In very exceptional cases it may just come down to the individual taking responsibility for making their own arrangements. Should the London Underground be closed down because some people can't manage escalators?

Why not try looking at the benefits of such a scheme, and thinking about how you would modify it for particular needs instead of dismissing it out of hand? After all, it's not so very far from that model that was tried and tested over centuries call a "village"?

I know of two hospitals where that’s happening, Growstuff. Local services were closed down and relocated at larger centres, meaning people had to travel long distances for not particularly complicated stuff (It’s understandable that high-tech medicine can only take place in a few locations).

That put pressure on the big centres, with not enough parking and not enough staff, because the people working at the smaller places didn’t necessarily want to make 50 mile round trips to work. They retired early or found other work. Then someone must have said ‘Ooh, I know what, let’s offer services locally, to save people travelling!’ and they’ve busily been trying to reopen the various units that closed down 20 years ago.

Also it wont reduce pollution that much because they will still need to have delivery lorries and other heavy vehicles. There is also a problem with deliveries and tradesmen. There was a guy on Instagram and another on TikTok who couldn't get to a job as there was no way to drive to the address. He was expected to park up and walk to the customer with ladders and or heavy tool boxes and if he needed to get anything else from his van was expected to walk a mile or more and back each time.

Most of the councils that are signing up to this are actually Labour run or a mixture of Labour and others (Green, Liberal or independent). Its a breach of civil liberties. What if you have relations living in another town or completely, what if they need your help at least once or twice a week and also in emergencies. You couldn't do that with 100 passes and thats 100 passes a household not a person. Its Big Brother in control start that and it wont be long before we are all expected to use digital currency and have no control over our finances either. Also will be controlled on who can buy a car or a new TV or even a bigger house.

Maybe SueDonim planners need to rethink centralisation.

Dickens I'm cynical about it happening too, which is why I said that it's aspirational.

Nevertheless, when new developments are planned, I think the accessibility of facilities should be considered.

There are millions of people in the UK who live in modern housing developments. Very often there aren't any shops, schools, healthcare facilities, swimming pools, leisure centres, vets, village halls, nurseries, parks and playgrounds etc etc within miles.

It's very difficult for communities to develop in such places and people are forced to have cars. The lack of facilities also means there is no local work, so people have to commute.

I don't know why it's become a topical issue because I read about the idea years ago. I don't really understand why it's been hijacked by people who think it's some kind of conspiracy.

There’s a similar-sounding plan to divide Canterbury into ‘driving’ zones. It’s a Tory council proposal, btw. www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/canterbury-could-split-five-parts-8077244

There’s a great to-do going on about it, with resignations and whatnot. It’s also pretty pointless regarding pollution because by the time it’s fully implemented, in 2045, all cars will be electric anyway. Canterbury is also proposing building thousands and thousands of new houses to pay for a new ring road.

I don’t really see how these 15 minutes cities could ever become a reality, when over the past 40 years so many things have been centralised, particularly health and education services, and public transport has been cut.

Can't see why the ultra-righters are so disturbed about fifteen minute cities; don't we need the Vicar's permission to leave the parish on a Sunday as it is?

MaizieD Sheffield is currently exploring the possibility of becoming a 15 minute city - likely to be a 20 year plus project.

growstuff

Dickens Nobody would be "penalised". What it might mean is that planners might consider the needs of disabled people and possibly (yeah well, I can dream) and build local healthcare facilities and make sure there is good public transport to hospitals.

... OK, I get that.

If the day ever dawns when planners, developers, etc - with the aid of government - actually consider the needs of ordinary people, I think I'd be in shock!

Public transport would not only have to be accessible - but also affordable. As for building local healthcare facilities, that would require some investment and I can't see a Tory government focusing itself on providing the funding - not unless there was some way it could make money for them and their backers and donors.

Of course, I'm very cynical... and maybe looking well into the future, this government might be history because the nation will have woken up and realised that contrary to all the mutterings about 'levelling-up', the Northern Powerhouse, 'global Britain', 'build-back-better', etc, their lives have not improved, and the promises encapsulated in those little sound-bites, did bugger-all to deal with the real problems of housing, wage-stagnation, job security, the scarcity of GPs, the dire state of the NHS... and will have (I can dream also!) voted in a government that has accepted its role is to govern for the nation as a whole rather than prioritising party over people plus making sure it rewarded itself and its cohorts!

In principle, it's a brilliant idea. I don't think it will ever happen.

Grantanow

First, I think a lot of right wing loonies have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This type of scheme does not prevent car use - it simple restricts use on certain roads at certain times. Second, these schemes do depend on all facilities being available rather than promised for the future. In another example of urban planning he extension of the ULEZ zone in London is not accompanied by the immediate provision of public transport, merely a promise to improve it.

Expanding the ULEZ is going to hit the lower paid, those on shifts who cannot afford to replace their vehicles for one that’s not going to incur charges.

Unless Sadiq Khan intends to implement 24 hour efficient safe transport in the entire zone his plan is discriminatory.

Surely retailers will not be happy to go back to the corner shop principle as it could be more expensive for them than having their goods located in one large store located in a convenient, central position?

Errr, isn't there a proliferation of 'local' versions of the big supermarkets all over the place?

It's limiting choice and dictating what people purchase.

Well, how much choice do people want in their everyday shopping?
When I lived in Sheffield more years ago than I care to remember, it was a 10 minute walk from our flat down to the main road where there was a butcher, a greengrocer and a bakers, paper shop and launderette* (probably one or two more that I can't remember). If we wanted dry goods or fish there was an excellent, cheap bus service to the city centre, where, of course all the other shops were available. I don't recall feeling that my choice was restricted, we had everything we needed and without a car it was no particular hardship. I think that many people would be more than happy with a range of small shops within easy walking distance. As home delivery is a pretty well used concept it could be extended to the goods that people don't feel able to carry home in bags.

(*those Sheffield shops aren't there now, of course)

I do think that people are making heavy weather of this.

I’m typing this because n my phone, so apologies for any typos.

I think people are conflating two (or more) things in this thread: the Oxford proposals (which are merely a 6 month trial of a traffic filtering system on very few roads), the wider 15 minute city concept, and general car reduction initiatives.

Being careful not to out myself too much here: firstly, I’m not a town planner, although I have had some training. I have, however, worked on a number of planning initiatives and projects, at policy and grassroots levels, in England, Scotland and some overseas countries.

When residents in urban and suburban areas are asked to describe, or draw, their ideal living environment, there are common factors: walkability (ie they can walk to services and facilities that meet their daily needs); good local services and amenities for those daily needs; fewer cars; separation of cars and people not in cars; green space (and often, water - canal, river, lake, commonly, as most people don’t live near coasts); and good public transport for accessing services and amenities that they don’t need daily (hospitals, museums, theatres etc) or for those who cannot drive.

In fact, exactly the kind of area that is routinely described as an ideal place to retire to on Gransnet.

The 15 minute city (and 20 minute neighbourhoods in Scotland) concepts are just that: concepts which provide a possible development framework that meets community needs and wants. There are certainly challenges and questions to be asked about the concept, but they are answerable, and challenges resolvable, because there is no one model - it’s very much about a planning and design process that results in liveable areas which meet, as far as possible, local needs and contributes to reducing pollution.

Contrary to what the anti-brigade would have people believe, they are not about banning cars, but about providing viable alternatives, except where that is genuinely not possible.

And yes, they are about urban, not rural areas - the clue is in the name. There are other conversations to be had about rural transport and connectivity to local cities (hub and spoke, concentric ring model and more) but this probably isn’t the place.

What we need is better, frequent, affordable public transport.

I'll vote for that, but I wouldn't have voted for Mussolini .

I'm still at a loss to see the right wing connection. Can anyone please explain without just repeating the accusation?

It's not for us. It's for the future. We aren't the future. We are the past.
Think of an environment we want for our DGC not whether or not our lifestyles can carry on as they have been indefinitely ignoring the warnings.

I love that future planners are having bold ideas and that towns sorry cities such as Oxford have the courage to test them out.

Unless everything everyone needs is in that particular area then I cant see how it will work.

It's limiting choice and dictating what people purchase.
Surely retailers will not be happy to go back to the corner shop principle as it could be more expensive for them than having their goods located in one large store located in a convenient, central position?

Planners, of course, do decide how we should live and how we shop. Out-of-town huge shopping malls killed off town centres because planners decided that was the future.

What we need is better, frequent, affordable public transport.

First, I think a lot of right wing loonies have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This type of scheme does not prevent car use - it simple restricts use on certain roads at certain times. Second, these schemes do depend on all facilities being available rather than promised for the future. In another example of urban planning he extension of the ULEZ zone in London is not accompanied by the immediate provision of public transport, merely a promise to improve it.

I'm not looking for edge cases - I'm looking at the likely outcome of something that doesn't seem to me to have ben thought through. The examples in my last post are hardly outliers, are they?