2 ms·

It's more that I have a fundamental desire to travel further than 15 minutes from my home on a regular basis, via any mode of transport. That is to say that th

by throwaway22032 5y ago

It's more that I have a fundamental desire to travel further than 15 minutes from my home on a regular basis, via any mode of transport. That is to say that the feeling of being in a different place is psychologically important. I think that most people have this desire and many of them don't realise it until they fall into a habit of not really leaving their local area (e.g. staying indoors for weeks on end doing WFH). They start to feel sad or frustrated and can't really identify why. Exploration and novelty is important for the human spirit.

jodrellblank 5y ago
The fact that your local shop, work or school is 15 minutes away doesn’t preclude you from walking for 30 minutes. The fact that my commute is a business park 30 minutes away doesn’t make my life full of exploration and novelty, it just wastes time and money.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Stevvo 5y ago
China has hundreds of millions of people living in '15 minute cities'. You can still get out and explore with public transport that will take you literally anywhere in the country faster than driving.
- criddell 5y ago
  It isn’t always about speed. Even if I could get to work faster via rail or bus, I would still prefer to use my car. I like being alone, I like driving, I like being in control of the temperature and airflow, I like being able to pick my route and make any stops I want. When you look at the best selling vehicles in the US it’s clear that people generally aren’t buying the least expensive vehicle that would work for them. They spend tens of thousands more because they want to.
bigDinosaur 5y ago
By far the best exploration and novelty I've ever had in terms of cities has come from those cities that embody the '15 minute' approach. Surprise - nobody bans you or even discourages you from travelling away further than necessary from your closest conveniences! By contrast, cities that are car dependent and spread out have been invariably the most alienating environments possible in terms of novelty. You have to drive, and quite quickly, because there's nothing else but concrete and parking lots and gigantic stores on any human scale.
- jabl 5y ago
  To stereotype a little (or not so little), Americans do their once-in-a-lifetime trip through the classic European cities and walk wide-eyed along the narrow winding streets, and eat ice cream along the many small town squares/piazzas/whatever, sighing happily. And then they go home and vote for widening their local stroad, as if that would in any way contribute to solving the suburban hellscape problem.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    Well, of course we have the opposite too. I live in my little shoebox in inner/central London and then go and rent a big beefy beefcar and drive around the US, then go home and get on the tube. :D
alamortsubite 5y ago
The desire to travel doesn't support the conclusion that automobiles are somehow natural and vital to the human spirit. In my world, traveling is a much richer experience when automobiles aren't involved. Indeed, they're a real buzz-kill.
lozenge 5y ago
Yeah I'm at a loss there- I have good Turkish, Greek and British food locally, but I need to travel if I want the best Indian, or vegan, or cocktails, or... it's not like I'm trapped here, I just have quick and slow options.
m0llusk 5y ago
Being able to quickly fetch a gallon of milk or easily walk your kids to school actually enhances the ability to explore and take in novelty. Being forced to drive everywhere adds monetary and time costs as well as a great deal of risk from crashes. Characterizing life in suburban America as it is currently built as embracing and enabling exploration and novelty seems pretty far off. It is much more common for people, especially young people who most desire exploration and novelty, to find our omnipresent suburbs to be stifling.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  The source of confusion is probably that I'm not talking about the suburban US but basically just most cities in Europe or the UK. You can live in basically any city (actual city, not the suburbs) and have most things close by, it's an available option. What I'm arguing against is the idea that we should make everywhere like this, or that within those zones we should seek to make travel awkward for the sake of maintaining the 15-minute ideal. For example, if you have to ban cars in my street to bring it from a 'everything within 20-minutes' to 'everything within 15-minutes', then logically in my view you lose more. This is just anecdotal, but my street is full of stuff like camper vans, off road vehicles, tourers and cool shit, they'd have to either give up their hobbies or move out and into the country.

jodrellblank 5y ago

The fact that your local shop, work or school is 15 minutes away doesn’t preclude you from walking for 30 minutes. The fact that my commute is a business park 30 minutes away doesn’t make my life full of exploration and novelty, it just wastes time and money.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Stevvo 5y ago

China has hundreds of millions of people living in '15 minute cities'. You can still get out and explore with public transport that will take you literally anywhere in the country faster than driving.

criddell 5y ago
It isn’t always about speed. Even if I could get to work faster via rail or bus, I would still prefer to use my car. I like being alone, I like driving, I like being in control of the temperature and airflow, I like being able to pick my route and make any stops I want. When you look at the best selling vehicles in the US it’s clear that people generally aren’t buying the least expensive vehicle that would work for them. They spend tens of thousands more because they want to.

bigDinosaur 5y ago

By far the best exploration and novelty I've ever had in terms of cities has come from those cities that embody the '15 minute' approach. Surprise - nobody bans you or even discourages you from travelling away further than necessary from your closest conveniences! By contrast, cities that are car dependent and spread out have been invariably the most alienating environments possible in terms of novelty. You have to drive, and quite quickly, because there's nothing else but concrete and parking lots and gigantic stores on any human scale.

jabl 5y ago
To stereotype a little (or not so little), Americans do their once-in-a-lifetime trip through the classic European cities and walk wide-eyed along the narrow winding streets, and eat ice cream along the many small town squares/piazzas/whatever, sighing happily. And then they go home and vote for widening their local stroad, as if that would in any way contribute to solving the suburban hellscape problem.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Well, of course we have the opposite too. I live in my little shoebox in inner/central London and then go and rent a big beefy beefcar and drive around the US, then go home and get on the tube. :D

alamortsubite 5y ago

The desire to travel doesn't support the conclusion that automobiles are somehow natural and vital to the human spirit. In my world, traveling is a much richer experience when automobiles aren't involved. Indeed, they're a real buzz-kill.

lozenge 5y ago

Yeah I'm at a loss there- I have good Turkish, Greek and British food locally, but I need to travel if I want the best Indian, or vegan, or cocktails, or... it's not like I'm trapped here, I just have quick and slow options.

m0llusk 5y ago

Being able to quickly fetch a gallon of milk or easily walk your kids to school actually enhances the ability to explore and take in novelty. Being forced to drive everywhere adds monetary and time costs as well as a great deal of risk from crashes. Characterizing life in suburban America as it is currently built as embracing and enabling exploration and novelty seems pretty far off. It is much more common for people, especially young people who most desire exploration and novelty, to find our omnipresent suburbs to be stifling.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway22032 5y ago
The source of confusion is probably that I'm not talking about the suburban US but basically just most cities in Europe or the UK. You can live in basically any city (actual city, not the suburbs) and have most things close by, it's an available option. What I'm arguing against is the idea that we should make everywhere like this, or that within those zones we should seek to make travel awkward for the sake of maintaining the 15-minute ideal. For example, if you have to ban cars in my street to bring it from a 'everything within 20-minutes' to 'everything within 15-minutes', then logically in my view you lose more. This is just anecdotal, but my street is full of stuff like camper vans, off road vehicles, tourers and cool shit, they'd have to either give up their hobbies or move out and into the country.