Look inside the 15-Minute City trojan horse

Wait till you see what crafty urban planners are trying to slip into your community!

Oh no, what have we let in?!

There’s so much city planning jargon to keep straight that you might be wondering what exactly sneaks into local policy under the vague name [big commercial man voice with reverb]: FIF(fif) TEEN(een) MINUTE(inute) CITY(city).

I put together a short list of outcomes for your reference. Not side effects of 15-minute city concepts, but direct outcomes. Let’s go.

Healthy Haven: The neighborhood is buzzing with active individuals who joyfully walk and ride bikes because it’s too easy not to. Anxiety, depression, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, chronic pain all go down.

Sidewalk Serenity: There’s a tranquil ambiance where cars are optional guests. The absence of constant traffic noise creates a peaceful environment to unwind, be outdoors, and engage with other humans.

Bike Bonanza: With the skyrocketing popularity of electric bicycles, running errands and commuting becomes a breeze, making everyday tasks easier and more enjoyable.

Community Connections: Walkable, bikeable neighborhoods foster a strong sense of community, as residents frequently interact. Neighbors become friends, creating a tight-knit social fabric.

Greener and Cleaner: With reduced car dependency, you’re enjoying what feels like a luxury—more open natural space and cleaner air.

Budget Boost: Now that you were able to go from 3 to 2 cars in the household, you’re saving $10,000 per year. A walk-friendly, bike-friendly neighborhood (ahem, 15-minute neighborhood) is a wealth creator.

Thriving Local Businesses: The local economy flourishes because “buy local” is the easy and obvious choice, not just a slogan.

Stress-Free Mobility: Everything is so close! Remember the before-days when corner markets and restaurants were required by law to be in different zones from houses? Crazy. Now you’ve got shorter travel distances, even if you do opt for a car.

“15-minute city” is a new name for an old thing.

Garden Cities and neo-traditional planning were two significant movements in urban planning history that share a common goal of designing places around our basic needs. They emphasize human scale, mixed-use development, and pedestrian-friendly design.

I’m a cheerleader of new urbanism, which is sometimes used interchangeably with neo-traditional planning. New urbanism is broader in scope, but they’re very similar. You can nitpick with me if you want, but I don’t get to type neo-traditional often enough, so that’s the movement I’m linking to 15-minute cities.

Garden Cities sprouted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a response to the overcrowded and polluted industrial cities of the time. They were intended to be self-contained communities surrounded by greenbelts, combining the best aspects of urban and rural living. Ebenezer Howard, a British urban planner, outlined the concept and principles behind Garden Cities in his book “Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform.”

Fun tangent: Howard proposed creating new towns with a population cap and a balance of nature and industry. Never would I ever get behind that idea, but it’s worth mentioning because any good idea can get stretched into something oppressive.

Self-sufficiency was one of the core ideas of Garden Cities. They incorporated agricultural land and open green spaces, giving residents access to fresh food and recreational areas. Greenbelts acted as a buffer zone to prevent the sprawl of urban development. 

Neo-traditional planning (ok fine, new urbanism!) emerged in the late 20th century. It counteracts suburban sprawl and revives traditional urban design principles. It draws inspiration from traditional urban design patterns, including the use of narrower streets, higher building densities, and a mix of housing types and architectural styles. In other words, the design elements that create a sense of place, promote social interaction, and foster a vibrant streetscape.

Before I go any further, I do want to offer this PSA and say that not every city in the world advocating 15-minute cities has the same outcomes in mind. Some authorities (read this) really do want to restrict and control their citizens. You need to know that.

That’s partly why I want you to know the principles behind the lingo, so you understand the Why of a thing. Here are a handful of ways that Garden Cities and neo-traditional planning have influenced the current wave of city planning.

Human-Scale Design

Both Garden Cities and neo-traditional planning recognize the importance of designing communities at a human scale. “Connection” means residents can easily access amenities and services on foot or by bicycle. Cars are permitted, but not required as they are in our current situation.

Mixed-Use Development

They integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces within close proximity. This integration not only supports local businesses but also creates a vibrant and diverse community where people can live, work, and play. By reducing the need for long-distance commuting, mixed-use development enhances convenience and reduces traffic congestion. Remember, mixing uses is illegal in most of America.

Pedestrian Safety

Walkability and pedestrian-friendly design lie at the heart of both Garden Cities and neo-traditional planning. Well-connected sidewalks, narrower streets, and the integration of public spaces are part of the recipe. And not just because it looks nice in real estate photos, but because traffic calming is required on neighborhood streets where you value human life.

Scale and Intensity

Garden Cities were conceived as larger-scale developments, designed to accommodate a substantial population while maintaining some harmony with nature. Neo-traditional planning often focuses on smaller-scale development. It revitalizes existing urban cores or suburban areas. 

Design Aesthetics

Garden Cities were known for their picturesque and idyllic settings. Wide boulevards, spacious parks, and a separation of functions were key design features. The emphasis was on creating a tranquil environment that offered a respite from the chaos of industrial cities. Neo-traditional planning, on the other hand, looks more at the denser, more vibrant streetscape, often incorporating a mix of architectural styles.

Variations on a theme

The Garden City, neo-traditional, and 15-minute city share core principles. They’re not identical, and of course any modern planning approach will incorporate emerging technology that wasn’t around decades ago. 

Some global cities will choose to use design and technology to restrict and oppress residents. But if you’re in the US, it’s much harder for a local government to pull that off. That doesn’t have to be the inevitable outcome. In fact, it’s much easier to control a population when things like food sources and social gathering places are only accessible by car, and not allowed to be integrated in a neighborhood. 

Instead of dismissing 15-minute opponents as kooks, ask them friendly questions about their likes and dislikes. I guarantee you’ll find shared interests, and they’ll probably end up supporting the basics of a 15-minute city even if they insist on using a different term.