15-Minute Cities And Loss Of Freedom

Why are people afraid of ‘15-minute cities’?

RT

In an effort to make towns more user- and eco-friendly, urban planners have unveiled the ’15-minute city,’ which hopes to keep residents close to home to battle climate change. But will this plan open the door to greater restrictions?

More than 2,000 protesters went out into the streets of Oxford, England earlier this month to express their hostility to the controversial concept of the 15-minute city, which has already been quietly unveiled in a number of major cities, including Barcelona, Melbourne, Paris and Milan.

It seems that much of the skepticism and even paranoia about 15-minute cities stems from recent history, particularly humanity’s experience with the Covid pandemic and the restrictive methods that some world leaders chose for dealing with it. What started off as “15 days of lockdowns to flatten the curve” of the disease with a survival rate above 95%, turned into what many feel was a marathon in prison living. These skeptics now see 15-minute cities as a continuation of the dreaded ‘Great Reset’, a part of the unsettling formula of ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.’ They view the idea of renouncing at-will car travel as something akin to “eating bugs”, which is already being promoted as a way to mitigate climate change. And they are asking: can people who promote such ideas be trusted with regulating day-to-day city life?

To further complicate matters, the very idea that climate change is a problem that must be fought at all costs is an issue that seems to be as controversial as the great debate over abortion or gun control in the US. Some people, many of them on the political right, see this environmentalism as nothing more than an excuse for exerting more government control over people. Besides, the 15-minute city’s ability to help the environment has itself been called into question. 

During the Oxford protest, one of the speakers, a 12-year-old girl named Jasmine, provided an imaginary scenario: “Let’s say my friend lives in Zone 3 and I’m in Zone 1. If, for example, I went to my friend’s house in Zone 3. My parents normally come and pick me up in their car, it only takes 10 minutes. So does that mean that they’d have to go around the ring road and back into town again? If my mom or dad had to drive around the ring road, it would take 30 minutes, causing much more pollution and leaving a much bigger carbon footprint.” 

Moreover, is it realistic to think that every material good and service will always be readily accessible by a 15-minute bicycle ride or casual stroll? 

After all, what government bureaucrats promise and what they ultimately provide seldom align. And let’s not forget that business failures happen on a regular basis and often with little notice. Will residents of Zone 1, for example, be forced to pay fines in the event they must travel to Zone 5 for essential products, like food, medicine and even water in the event of unexpected shortfalls? 

Even if a self-contained neighborhood is ultimately able to maintain stable access to all the wants and needs of its residents, opponents of the idea have gone so far as to compare it to a gulag. They feel the 15-minute city would deprive them of the freedom of choice to leave their neighborhoods and venture to other businesses, schools, and health services without having to fork over money, time and nerves for the privilege. 

“The idea that neighborhoods should be walkable is lovely,” Dr. Jordan Peterson commentedover Twitter. “The idea that idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you're ‘allowed’ to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea - and, make no mistake, it's part of a well-documented plan.” 

More...