The 15-minute city is about creating more choice, not less

It has been fascinating to see the debate around 15-minute cities re-ignited recently. The discussion has certainly sparked some polarised views and, in some cases, caused alarm with concerns raised that it would take away people’s personal freedoms. 

Whilst I don’t agree with everything that’s been said, I do feel that it is good that a conversation about this urban concept is happening and gaining national attention.

I believe the 15-minute city can bring huge advantages to urban populations, making for healthier, happier, better connected and more sustainable communities. However, there is much to consider to ensure success and I’m keen to explore the nuances of this debate here.

Firstly, what is a 15-minute city? The concept is focused on creating inter-connected neighbourhoods where most of one’s daily needs and services, such as work, shopping, education, health and leisure, are located within an easily reachable 15-minute walk or bike ride.

The 15-minute city concept paves the way for a larger number of smaller interconnected neighbourhood hubs

This description is not dissimilar to a village, but let’s not forget that there’s a reason why by 2050, 70% of the world’s population will live in cities. They are often vibrant and engaging places to live, offering world-class experiences with unique cultural and heritage assets.

The 15-minute city concept paves the way for a larger number of smaller interconnected neighbourhood hubs in addition to a city centre hub. This is a trend that has actually already started to emerge following the pandemic, particularly with the advent of more hybrid working.

So, we still need to protect our city centres but, at the same time, recognise their role is changing. The move away from retail-dominated cities centres, which is already well underway, allows space for improving the city centre experience, by helping to make these places a destination for all.

It’s important also to highlight that the transition to a 15-minute city can’t be driven through a top-down approach, otherwise it runs the risk of driving gentrification and social inequality. It must be delivered through community dialogue to determine the specific needs of a particular neighbourhood, whether that’s health and social care, or improved shopping provision.

There’s worry also that people will be forced to spend their time in a particular way

It’s also vital there is early investment in infrastructure such as public transport and high quality urban realm. As well as commuter and arterial routes, a network of quality, well-connected pedestrian routes and cycle ways are needed within and between neighbourhoods. New ‘mobility hubs’ could bring together established forms of transport with new forms, such as e-scooters, e-cargo bikes, and ‘electric car clubs’.

Ultimately, I do think we need to move the 15-minute city discussion away from purely being a cars vs pedestrians debate and realise these two can co-exist. But we can do a lot better in terms of making it attractive and safe for people to walk and cycle, by creating streets and spaces that are people-centered.

There’s worry also that people will be forced to spend their time in a particular way. However, the 15-minute city concept promotes quite the opposite: with accessibility and free time come choice. It’s a careful balancing act between allowing people freedom of choice, providing core services closer to home and reducing the need for people to travel, which will help achieve carbon reduction targets.

Residents and businesses can choose to use local facilities or travel to wider parts of the city to suit their needs. Buy local or global – more readily available, locally-produced products helps avoid dependence on global supplies chains, which may change at short notice.

There would also be new opportunities for businesses around these smaller neighbourhood hubs

One of the big wins of a 15-minute city, in line with trends for hybrid working, is an improvement in people’s wellbeing. With work, shopping, leisure, education and healthcare on our doorstep, we are spending less time travelling and have more choice about how we spend our time, resulting in a better work-life balance.

A 15-minute travel distance is more likely not just to promote active travel and associated health benefits, but also encourage social and community cohesion across multiple generations, reducing demands on health and social care. There would also be new opportunities for businesses around these smaller neighbourhood hubs, whether for co-working hubs, pharmacies, shops or nurseries.

We do, however, need a critical mass, and urban density has a role to play here in terms of our longer-term housing strategy – but there are many ways to achieve this without compromising on open space and a sense of place.

The 15-minute city is not a new concept – it’s actually been around quite a long time and has in fact already informed a new urban planning model for Paris. The idea has gained pace since the pandemic, with the way people live their lives already having undergone a shift in terms of how we work, socialise, spend our leisure time and what we prioritise in life.

The 15-minute city is no silver bullet, but it has huge potential to change the way we think about how we organise existing cities and create new ones – for the better.