3 ms·

> Most things should be within walking distance so children can be more independent. But 15 minute cities are a trap designed to prevent you from ever leaving!

by Nursie 3y ago

> Most things should be within walking distance so children can be more independent. But 15 minute cities are a trap designed to prevent you from ever leaving! They're gonna take away your car and make you eat bugs! Obviously not something I believe, but it is mind-boggling to me that this obvious attempt to improve lives by trying to influence urban planners to make more things walkable and convenient, could be dressed up by reactionary weirdos as an attack on their liberty. Because it seems like such a no-brainer - have stuff (where stuff includes shops, places of work, schools, facilities etc) within easy reach. There are so many places (here in Australia too) where the housing suburbs of the larger cities are such a deadzone for simple services and facilities, that you have to get in the car to even pick up a coffee and a muffin of a morning.

anon291 3y ago
I mean as a very socially conservative person, I find the conservative opposition to fifteen minute cities extremely baffling. I'm a unicorn. I often disagree with city dwellers politically, but I just cannot move to a prison suburb to be around people who agrees with me. What's even the point of living in a place with people who see eye to eye on social issues if I never actually see them?? But yeah the depression I had moving back home (briefly) after living abroad for a while really threw me over the edge in terms of knowing where I wanted to live. The car dependence alone is ... Terrifying if you think about it. What happens if your car doesn't start?
- orwin 3y ago
  Nitpick, from what i've read from you in this thread, you're a societal conservative. You might be a social conservative (most american are, i think the left of the left of the democrat party isn't, but even then, its clearly a huge minority), but clearly, your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo). Liberals are often a lot more socially conservative than they say they are, and hide social issues their economic policies create by being progressive on societal issue, but even then they push their narrative. First and second wave feminism was about emancipation. Third and fourth wave feminism is about this "empowerment", which is fine, i guess, but really does not move the needle socially.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo). Given that I belong to many conservative urban clubs, I'm going to say that while urbanism tends to be a 'left-wing' issue, there's quite a lot of urbanism on the right too. More than you'd expect. For example, strong towns leans conservative (I think); the new polity podcast (traditional Catholic) has a bunch of episodes on urbanism; even Tucker carlson has gone on rants about ugly suburbia. The truth about American politics is that random issues end up getting lumped into 'left' or 'right' and then, due to feedback cycles, become predominantly associated with one or the other. My point in bringing up my politics was (1) to show that I'm approaching this from a perhaps underrepresented viewpoint on this forum, and (2) to express my confusion as to why 15 minute cities are not a conservative issue (and like I said there are some smaller groups that have taken it up). Finally, the reason I continue to say that I'm a conservative in these discussions is because I basically disagree with the vast majority of liberal urbanists. We agree on the results desired, but their methods are often toxic, unapproachable, and xenophobic in my viewpoint. I've directly butted heads with many at our local transit hearings. I truly don't see eye-to-eye with them on large portions of policy. One of the big issues right now in my city is the prioritization of 'diversity and equity' over actually building transit that works for everyone.
    - orwin 3y ago
      The issue is that you can be conservative or progressive on really different issues, and it does not apply 1:1 to politics (especially US politics). Most green party and ONGs are ecological conservatives (Greenpeace especially :/), despite being broadly at the left of socdems in Europe. Being societally conservative (practicing religious people are, in my experience) is orthogonal to being for closer communities, unlike pushing 'diversity and inclusion', which are an excuse to keep to social status quo, while virtue signaling.
Nasrudith 3y ago
Because as a group the "advocates" who are otherwise intelligent are so inhumanly terrible at communicating ideas that it frankly seems more like they are doing it intentionally to troll. Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown" is just flat out leading with the wrong conclusion and emphasis. You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy' to do worse. And then there is the concept of "privilege" which takes what should be a simple concept of invisible issues and manages to phrases it in a way that sets out to invalidate the experiences and insult everyone.... I'm not exactly sympathetic to the crowds but it is no wonder they are reactionary and paranoid when their "opposition" is so bad at communicating. I can say without hyperbole that they would obliviously describe a vaccine for all cancers in a way that implies they are going to kill everyone's children.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown" Who said that? Who tried to sell that idea that way? Nobody who's in favour of it, and it predates lockdowns by several years, originating in 2016 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/15-minute-cities-what-are-they-and-why-are-they-controversial https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/15-minute... > You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy' Which comes from a discussion piece or thought experiment about the way the world was going at the time (again 2016) with the sharing economy being all the buzz, that was never communicated to anyone as a utopia or something to aim for, let alone forming anybody's policy. It's an inconsequential essay that would have disappeared into obscurity if the forces of outrage hadn't discovered it and whipped up a storm. And again it was years before the pandemic. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha... This is not people on the 'pro' side communicating ideas poorly; the communications you're citing as damning were done by the same reactionaries railing against these issues. And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed. Again for me, as a conservatively-minded person, I also naturally tend to be against anything that seems like central planning. Central planning is the main reason we're in this mess to begin with. Even modern 'urban' developments are so mind-bogglingly awful it's hard to understand what people think they're going to get (California forever comes to mind...). I'm totally behind the idea of convenient cities. Instead of committees to centrally plan it, let's talk about building normal sized roads (a government responsibility) and eliminating permitting and parking requirements so owners get to use their land. That's the way normal cities get built. So while I absolutely support the idea of 15 minute cities, I find my natural reaction to many of the proponents of the idea to be wariness. I mean, all too often, I've been burnt by agreeing with someone only to then have them pivot immediately into the evils of capitalism, colonialism, etc. There absolutely is a problem with 'activists' in these circles, and they've hindered a lot of progress.

by Nursie 3y ago

anon291 3y ago

I mean as a very socially conservative person, I find the conservative opposition to fifteen minute cities extremely baffling. I'm a unicorn. I often disagree with city dwellers politically, but I just cannot move to a prison suburb to be around people who agrees with me. What's even the point of living in a place with people who see eye to eye on social issues if I never actually see them?? But yeah the depression I had moving back home (briefly) after living abroad for a while really threw me over the edge in terms of knowing where I wanted to live. The car dependence alone is ... Terrifying if you think about it. What happens if your car doesn't start?

orwin 3y ago
Nitpick, from what i've read from you in this thread, you're a societal conservative. You might be a social conservative (most american are, i think the left of the left of the democrat party isn't, but even then, its clearly a huge minority), but clearly, your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo). Liberals are often a lot more socially conservative than they say they are, and hide social issues their economic policies create by being progressive on societal issue, but even then they push their narrative. First and second wave feminism was about emancipation. Third and fourth wave feminism is about this "empowerment", which is fine, i guess, but really does not move the needle socially.
- anon291 3y ago
  > your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo). Given that I belong to many conservative urban clubs, I'm going to say that while urbanism tends to be a 'left-wing' issue, there's quite a lot of urbanism on the right too. More than you'd expect. For example, strong towns leans conservative (I think); the new polity podcast (traditional Catholic) has a bunch of episodes on urbanism; even Tucker carlson has gone on rants about ugly suburbia. The truth about American politics is that random issues end up getting lumped into 'left' or 'right' and then, due to feedback cycles, become predominantly associated with one or the other. My point in bringing up my politics was (1) to show that I'm approaching this from a perhaps underrepresented viewpoint on this forum, and (2) to express my confusion as to why 15 minute cities are not a conservative issue (and like I said there are some smaller groups that have taken it up). Finally, the reason I continue to say that I'm a conservative in these discussions is because I basically disagree with the vast majority of liberal urbanists. We agree on the results desired, but their methods are often toxic, unapproachable, and xenophobic in my viewpoint. I've directly butted heads with many at our local transit hearings. I truly don't see eye-to-eye with them on large portions of policy. One of the big issues right now in my city is the prioritization of 'diversity and equity' over actually building transit that works for everyone.
  - orwin 3y ago
    The issue is that you can be conservative or progressive on really different issues, and it does not apply 1:1 to politics (especially US politics). Most green party and ONGs are ecological conservatives (Greenpeace especially :/), despite being broadly at the left of socdems in Europe. Being societally conservative (practicing religious people are, in my experience) is orthogonal to being for closer communities, unlike pushing 'diversity and inclusion', which are an excuse to keep to social status quo, while virtue signaling.

Nasrudith 3y ago

Because as a group the "advocates" who are otherwise intelligent are so inhumanly terrible at communicating ideas that it frankly seems more like they are doing it intentionally to troll. Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown" is just flat out leading with the wrong conclusion and emphasis. You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy' to do worse. And then there is the concept of "privilege" which takes what should be a simple concept of invisible issues and manages to phrases it in a way that sets out to invalidate the experiences and insult everyone.... I'm not exactly sympathetic to the crowds but it is no wonder they are reactionary and paranoid when their "opposition" is so bad at communicating. I can say without hyperbole that they would obliviously describe a vaccine for all cancers in a way that implies they are going to kill everyone's children.

Nursie 3y ago
> Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown" Who said that? Who tried to sell that idea that way? Nobody who's in favour of it, and it predates lockdowns by several years, originating in 2016 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/15-minute-cities-what-are-they-and-why-are-they-controversial https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/15-minute... > You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy' Which comes from a discussion piece or thought experiment about the way the world was going at the time (again 2016) with the sharing economy being all the buzz, that was never communicated to anyone as a utopia or something to aim for, let alone forming anybody's policy. It's an inconsequential essay that would have disappeared into obscurity if the forces of outrage hadn't discovered it and whipped up a storm. And again it was years before the pandemic. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha... This is not people on the 'pro' side communicating ideas poorly; the communications you're citing as damning were done by the same reactionaries railing against these issues. And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed.
- anon291 3y ago
  > And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed. Again for me, as a conservatively-minded person, I also naturally tend to be against anything that seems like central planning. Central planning is the main reason we're in this mess to begin with. Even modern 'urban' developments are so mind-bogglingly awful it's hard to understand what people think they're going to get (California forever comes to mind...). I'm totally behind the idea of convenient cities. Instead of committees to centrally plan it, let's talk about building normal sized roads (a government responsibility) and eliminating permitting and parking requirements so owners get to use their land. That's the way normal cities get built. So while I absolutely support the idea of 15 minute cities, I find my natural reaction to many of the proponents of the idea to be wariness. I mean, all too often, I've been burnt by agreeing with someone only to then have them pivot immediately into the evils of capitalism, colonialism, etc. There absolutely is a problem with 'activists' in these circles, and they've hindered a lot of progress.