5 ms·

"15 minute cities" -- you mean, walkable, normal cities? Lord have mercy, I have a case of the vapors. What a silly thing to be upset about, and definitely the

"15 minute cities" -- you mean, walkable, normal cities? Lord have mercy, I have a case of the vapors. What a silly thing to be upset about, and definitely the weirdest manufactured outrage of 2023. I for one hope they force us to walk at least 45 minutes or take a car!

1827163 3y ago
[flagged]
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Cities are responsible for directing the flow of traffic. Traffic sucks and cars suck. I really don't see the problem with dissuading their use. Again, manufactured outrage. Having everything around you is great, it's why people live in cities. There's no dystopian undertone to having a grocery store and other amenities around the corner and easily accessible, lol. Why would you intentionally want things further away from you? There's plenty of real things to be angry about.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    Absolutely, the idea of having everything within 15 minutes walking distance is great. But actively restricting people's movements in this way is not, at least to me. Public highways are really the people's property. In a democratic society if the majority of the public dislike the roadblocks, the local government should remove them. I think it's valid for the public to get upset about attempts by the government to micromanage their lives in this way. Such micromanagement may sound trivial, but the underlying motivation for doing so is not. As it is an attempt to exercise power and control over the population. Often it starts with very trivial matters, and later expands to greater ones, as we have seen over the years. And it's not just this particular issue, it's many other things which are restricting our freedoms in general, all together. Which are increasing the level of outrage against the state. That's good because at least the public is pushing back against it. There may be a point where people can't take it anymore and might start protesting en masse. I'm really waiting for that to happen, we might find ourselves getting our civil liberties back eventually.
    - swores 3y ago
      The majority of us don't dislike them. That's a right wing narrative that ties to conspiracy theories. (Speaking as someone who doesn't have a block on my road, but have had to adjust my driving habits when visiting local family).
      - 1827163 3y ago
        No conspiracy here, just people in power trying to increase their control over people's lives, as usual. It's a distributed phenomenon that arises from human nature. https://thecritic.co.uk/have-we-really-lost-the-plot/ https://thecritic.co.uk/have-we-really-lost-the-plot/ " Pundits continue to sneer, dismissing critics of 15 minute cities (a critique, as the great Simon Cooke points out, that it’s perfectly reasonable to make) as “conspiracy theorists”. " https://simoncooke.substack.com/p/smart-cities-are-just-municipal-authoritarianism https://simoncooke.substack.com/p/smart-cities-are-just-muni... "In this explanation we begin to see just how authoritarian the urban green agenda has become - not a surprise given that Moreno is an advocate of ‘smart cities’ and literally profits from authoritarian smart city technology:"
      - pkphilip 3y ago
        Why don't you consider an alternate option - allow people to stay in a 15-minute city if they want and walk to shops etc as they desire but allow others to take a vehicle and go elsewhere if they want? The problem only arises if you remove that option or if you penalise that action in some way.
        swores 3y ago
        People are still free to drive to other areas, just not on all roads. You could just as well be saying "why not let people drive drunk and at 100mph on residential roads, and let others can choose not to?" Sure we could say that... or we could say it's legal to drive your car onto historically pedestrian-only paths. But we elect people to try to make decisions that benefit the most people as best as possible, and it turns out that most people don't think that "any road that currently allows cars must always allow cars" is an inalienable rule that must be followed. Yes we should debate these things - I assume very few people would support removing all speed limits or lowering speed limits to 2mph on all roads, though there's bound to be some variance in views about what goes too far or not enough. But in this topic of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, you've got one side saying "wouldn't it be nice if residential side roads stopped being hugely used (thanks to GPS routing apps) by through-traffic, and therefore made much better for the people living there, and for pedestrians and cyclists" while the other side instead of engaging on that actual debate instead jumps to "they want to lock us into 15min areas we won't ever be allowed to leave! It's climate fascism!"
  - easytiger 3y ago
    Because you know it doesn't work already - if you live in a city that is trying this. And because you know the reality is no new stores/shops etc are being "created" to facilitate any such goal. The reality is people simply order everything on Amazon instead. Perhaps you can point to how these schemes are funding shops?
- Timon3 3y ago
  How do walkable cities lead to roadblocks? Aren't they completely separate issues, especially considering you literally admit the reason for roadblocks is reducing pollution?
- Symbiote 3y ago
  20 years ago when I moved to London, this was called "blocking off rat-runs" and had widespread support from most local residents. The article mentions Hammersmith and Fulham. That has plenty of these roadblocks dating from around that time. I'm not sure if it was a Labour or Conservative initiative, but the Conservatives certainly had plenty of time to remove them. For example the gates along the roads leading south from Fulham Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48011/-0.19237 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48011/-0.19237 This should not be a left vs. right issue, but our political system and public debate has deteriorated into black-vs-white arguments.
  - 1827163 3y ago
    However that was for the benefit of the residents, to reduce noise pollution made by people outside the area using it as a shortcut. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/what-is-rat-running-and-should-cut-through-traffic-be-illegal/ https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/what-is-ra... The roadblocks in the 15 minute cities have been imposed to control the residents, to reduce their freedom and autonomy, to satisfy environmental goals. That is the difference. Instead of being a left vs. right issue, instead I think it's an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue. On one side we have those advocating for more state control, in the name of the greater good. And on the other side we have those for personal freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass ?
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      The effect on local residents is pretty much the same: on those roads in Fulham they have had to drive the long way around for decades, but can walk or cycle on a direct route. I can just as easily argue that the blocks increase freedom and autonomy (especially of children and elderly) since they can now use their local roads safely and/or independently. Whatever binary classification you choose, I don't want to shape a debate around it. It is too simple. Great for bad headlines, +1s on Facebook and so on, but detrimental to public discourse and society.
    - RugnirViking 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gadders 3y ago
  When even comedian Joe Lycett starts complaining about them, you know you've lost the public: "Joe Lycett and Sophie Duker take on Croydon Council over the Parsons Mead LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) which has left locals racking up hundreds of pounds in fines." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0ooxIHXvj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0ooxIHXvj4

1827163 3y ago

[flagged]

arcticbull 3y ago
Cities are responsible for directing the flow of traffic. Traffic sucks and cars suck. I really don't see the problem with dissuading their use. Again, manufactured outrage. Having everything around you is great, it's why people live in cities. There's no dystopian undertone to having a grocery store and other amenities around the corner and easily accessible, lol. Why would you intentionally want things further away from you? There's plenty of real things to be angry about.
- 1827163 3y ago
  Absolutely, the idea of having everything within 15 minutes walking distance is great. But actively restricting people's movements in this way is not, at least to me. Public highways are really the people's property. In a democratic society if the majority of the public dislike the roadblocks, the local government should remove them. I think it's valid for the public to get upset about attempts by the government to micromanage their lives in this way. Such micromanagement may sound trivial, but the underlying motivation for doing so is not. As it is an attempt to exercise power and control over the population. Often it starts with very trivial matters, and later expands to greater ones, as we have seen over the years. And it's not just this particular issue, it's many other things which are restricting our freedoms in general, all together. Which are increasing the level of outrage against the state. That's good because at least the public is pushing back against it. There may be a point where people can't take it anymore and might start protesting en masse. I'm really waiting for that to happen, we might find ourselves getting our civil liberties back eventually.
  - swores 3y ago
    The majority of us don't dislike them. That's a right wing narrative that ties to conspiracy theories. (Speaking as someone who doesn't have a block on my road, but have had to adjust my driving habits when visiting local family).
    - 1827163 3y ago
      No conspiracy here, just people in power trying to increase their control over people's lives, as usual. It's a distributed phenomenon that arises from human nature. https://thecritic.co.uk/have-we-really-lost-the-plot/ https://thecritic.co.uk/have-we-really-lost-the-plot/ " Pundits continue to sneer, dismissing critics of 15 minute cities (a critique, as the great Simon Cooke points out, that it’s perfectly reasonable to make) as “conspiracy theorists”. " https://simoncooke.substack.com/p/smart-cities-are-just-municipal-authoritarianism https://simoncooke.substack.com/p/smart-cities-are-just-muni... "In this explanation we begin to see just how authoritarian the urban green agenda has become - not a surprise given that Moreno is an advocate of ‘smart cities’ and literally profits from authoritarian smart city technology:"
    - pkphilip 3y ago
      Why don't you consider an alternate option - allow people to stay in a 15-minute city if they want and walk to shops etc as they desire but allow others to take a vehicle and go elsewhere if they want? The problem only arises if you remove that option or if you penalise that action in some way.
      - swores 3y ago
        People are still free to drive to other areas, just not on all roads. You could just as well be saying "why not let people drive drunk and at 100mph on residential roads, and let others can choose not to?" Sure we could say that... or we could say it's legal to drive your car onto historically pedestrian-only paths. But we elect people to try to make decisions that benefit the most people as best as possible, and it turns out that most people don't think that "any road that currently allows cars must always allow cars" is an inalienable rule that must be followed. Yes we should debate these things - I assume very few people would support removing all speed limits or lowering speed limits to 2mph on all roads, though there's bound to be some variance in views about what goes too far or not enough. But in this topic of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, you've got one side saying "wouldn't it be nice if residential side roads stopped being hugely used (thanks to GPS routing apps) by through-traffic, and therefore made much better for the people living there, and for pedestrians and cyclists" while the other side instead of engaging on that actual debate instead jumps to "they want to lock us into 15min areas we won't ever be allowed to leave! It's climate fascism!"
- easytiger 3y ago
  Because you know it doesn't work already - if you live in a city that is trying this. And because you know the reality is no new stores/shops etc are being "created" to facilitate any such goal. The reality is people simply order everything on Amazon instead. Perhaps you can point to how these schemes are funding shops?
Timon3 3y ago
How do walkable cities lead to roadblocks? Aren't they completely separate issues, especially considering you literally admit the reason for roadblocks is reducing pollution?
Symbiote 3y ago
20 years ago when I moved to London, this was called "blocking off rat-runs" and had widespread support from most local residents. The article mentions Hammersmith and Fulham. That has plenty of these roadblocks dating from around that time. I'm not sure if it was a Labour or Conservative initiative, but the Conservatives certainly had plenty of time to remove them. For example the gates along the roads leading south from Fulham Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48011/-0.19237 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48011/-0.19237 This should not be a left vs. right issue, but our political system and public debate has deteriorated into black-vs-white arguments.
- 1827163 3y ago
  However that was for the benefit of the residents, to reduce noise pollution made by people outside the area using it as a shortcut. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/what-is-rat-running-and-should-cut-through-traffic-be-illegal/ https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/what-is-ra... The roadblocks in the 15 minute cities have been imposed to control the residents, to reduce their freedom and autonomy, to satisfy environmental goals. That is the difference. Instead of being a left vs. right issue, instead I think it's an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue. On one side we have those advocating for more state control, in the name of the greater good. And on the other side we have those for personal freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass ?
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    The effect on local residents is pretty much the same: on those roads in Fulham they have had to drive the long way around for decades, but can walk or cycle on a direct route. I can just as easily argue that the blocks increase freedom and autonomy (especially of children and elderly) since they can now use their local roads safely and/or independently. Whatever binary classification you choose, I don't want to shape a debate around it. It is too simple. Great for bad headlines, +1s on Facebook and so on, but detrimental to public discourse and society.
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gadders 3y ago
When even comedian Joe Lycett starts complaining about them, you know you've lost the public: "Joe Lycett and Sophie Duker take on Croydon Council over the Parsons Mead LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) which has left locals racking up hundreds of pounds in fines." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0ooxIHXvj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0ooxIHXvj4