20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Or you can have encourage people not to buy cars or a second car by making them unnecessary. So people could actually save money. And I saw nothing in the question about apartment living vs single home living. And if they have less expense on automobiles, whiich is usually a drain on income, they'll have more to spend on shelter.

Per the plan, one's personal movement will be restricted to only places one can drive to in fifteen minutes. So, by mandating people stay within the fifteen-minute range, they can't really go anywhere anyway, which will make having a car unnecessary, yes? 

 

So actually, they (the poor) will be able to save money both by not having a car, and by not having anywhere to go. Yes, I see now how this really will be a big benefit for the poor. 

 

Coincidentally, it should keep the keep the hoi-polloi of the beaches and slopes as well! wink-wink-nudge-nudge

 

 

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's that got to do with whether you live in an apartment or freestanding home?

I'm sorry, you're right. Per the plan, you can live anywhere you want, and go anywhere you want to go, as long as you stay within your fifteen-minute restricted area. 

 

We good? 

 

 

Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?

 

No

On 3/23/2023 at 5:42 PM, Dave0206 said:

whilst ignoring Elon musk going to burn God knows how much to explore Mars

Bad example- space rockets don't use fossil fuel- they burn oxygen and ( I think ) hydrogen, which produces water as a by product.

On 3/23/2023 at 7:06 PM, Red Phoenix said:

Of course it makes sense to avoid polluting the environment, and to ensure that our cities are livable, but not by imposing senseless restrictions that are sold as necessary to combat global warming. 

Never underestimate the desire of the woke to make other people live as they think other people should while living in a way that the other people can't.

Boris is an example of that.

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Per the plan, one's personal movement will be restricted to only places one can drive to in fifteen minutes. So, by mandating people stay within the fifteen-minute range, they can't really go anywhere anyway, which will make having a car unnecessary, yes? 

 

So actually, they (the poor) will be able to save money both by not having a car, and by not having anywhere to go. Yes, I see now how this really will be a big benefit for the poor. 

 

Coincidentally, it should keep the keep the hoi-polloi of the beaches and slopes as well! wink-wink-nudge-nudge

 

 

Since when does a fifteen minute driving range mean there's nowhere "nowhere to go"

 

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Since when does a fifteen minute driving range mean there's nowhere "nowhere to go"

 

NOT DRIVING ... walking or cycling

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

NOT DRIVING ... walking or cycling

My reply was to yellowtail who was following the rules laid down by Connda in his 2nd question which stipulates 15 minutes by auto Of course it's a purposely misleading question since connda chose the subject line to read  Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming? Obviously it's an attempt to tie the real 15 minute city program to some dystopian vision.  His question also stipulates that residents are forbidden from leaving their district It's B.S. of course, since the actual 15 minute cities program is about 15 minute access by walking or bike ride. And nowhere in the 15 minute city concept is there any reference to forbidding people from leaving their district.

Why even mention the 15 minute city concept if your question has nothing to do with it? Obviously it's there to mislead.

On 3/24/2023 at 3:32 PM, placeholder said:

 

Why would the program make it too expensive for the "the poor/non-rich by making it too expensive for them to own cars or homes with a yard, yes?"

You have offered no explanation of how that works.

They increase the divide between rich and poor by driving the working man into gig economy serfdom, and paying minimal wages to young people, preventing them from saving and getting on the asset ladder.  

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

My reply was to yellowtail who was following the rules laid down by Connda in his 2nd question which stipulates 15 minutes by auto Of course it's a purposely misleading question since connda chose the subject line to read  Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming? Obviously it's an attempt to tie the real 15 minute city program to some dystopian vision.  His question also stipulates that residents are forbidden from leaving their district It's B.S. of course, since the actual 15 minute cities program is about 15 minute access by walking or bike ride. And nowhere in the 15 minute city concept is there any reference to forbidding people from leaving their district.

Why even mention the 15 minute city concept if your question has nothing to do with it? Obviously it's there to mislead.

Perhaps it was an honest misunderstanding.  Perhaps he was a victim of false facts and mid-reporting by others.  
What is more interesting is the stream of reactionary bile that he untapped.

13 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

They increase the divide between rich and poor by driving the working man into gig economy serfdom, and paying minimal wages to young people, preventing them from saving and getting on the asset ladder.  

Are you referring to the genuine 15 minute city concept or something else?

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Are you referring to the genuine 15 minute city concept or something else?

Specifically to the question of why and how the wealthy would oppress the poor, from the post I quoted.  
The “fifteen minute city” allows people to dispense with many of the trappings of wealth - reducing our carbon footprint - and perhaps freeing many people from the rat race treadmill of wage-serfdom.

When you provide a service that your neighbours want, and can live on frugal resources, the tax man and Elon Musk can whistle.

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

Are you referring to the genuine 15 minute city concept or something else?

So far, there has been no "genuine 15-minute city concept" plan presented here.

 

All we know it that they will be utopian places to live, much like all the other government housing projects. 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So far, there has been no "genuine 15-minute city concept" plan presented here.

 

All we know it that they will be utopian places to live, much like all the other government housing projects. 

More distortions from you. Show me where it's claimed they will be utopias.

And why should there be a plan presented here? The question in this thread uses a misleading premise.. As though it has some actual relation to the 15 minute city premise. All we have to show is that it has nothing to do with a real 15 minute city premise which is simple enough. Here's the basic founding principle of a 15 minute city:

 

"The 15-minute city (FMC or 15mC) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city#:~:text=The 15-minute city (FMC,any point in the city.

 

And why 15 minutes?    

    The actual idea of a 15-minute city is fundamentally mundane — a form of urban planning that recognises that for journeys that take much longer than a quarter of an hour we tend to use vehicles, and so aims to maximise the density of walkable amenities.

https://www.ft.com/content/93d58155-5a4e-4135-ac6f-00d5a3c8e4d1

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More distortions from you. Show me where it's claimed they will be utopias.

And why should there be a plan presented here? The question in this thread uses a misleading premise.. As though it has some actual relation to the 15 minute city premise. All we have to show is that it has nothing to do with a real 15 minute city premise which is simple enough. Here's the basic founding principle of a 15 minute city:

 

"The 15-minute city (FMC or 15mC) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city#:~:text=The 15-minute city (FMC,any point in the city.

 

And why 15 minutes?    

    The actual idea of a 15-minute city is fundamentally mundane — a form of urban planning that recognises that for journeys that take much longer than a quarter of an hour we tend to use vehicles, and so aims to maximise the density of walkable amenities.

https://www.ft.com/content/93d58155-5a4e-4135-ac6f-00d5a3c8e4d1

 

So why are they not being built?

 

What's stopping them? 

 

 

 

 

On 3/26/2023 at 8:17 PM, Yellowtail said:

So why are they not being built?

 

What's stopping them? 

 

 

 

 

Zone-based planning regulations.  Minimum parking regulations.  Road design that places traffic speed as a higher priority than access for people.  Lobbying by construction firms. Planning processes that larger developers can more easily manipulate.

The only thing that 15-minute cities are going to save us from is freedom. So I'm going to vote no on that.

7 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Zone-based planning regulations.  Minimum parking regulations.  Road design that places traffic speed as a higher priority than access for people.  Lobbying by construction firms. Planning processes that larger developers can more easily manipulate.

It is pretty hard for me to believe that if Apple, or Meta or any one of a thousand companies wanted to do this that there would be significant push-back from the state of California, or that they would not be able to find a developer. 

 

Assuming the people in the 15-minute cities own cars for when they leave the 15-minute city, would they not each have a parking spot? 

 

If the city is designed for walking, why would there be a need for fast moving traffic? Would there not just be an entrance and exit to the city for people coming and going? 

 

Are you saying that big city governments are typically controlled by private developers? Maybe in Texas and Florida, but surely not in California and New York. 

 

To be clear, I would absolutely support these cities as long as they were privately funded and did not have to use eminent domain to displace existing residents. Who would be against them? Who loses? 

 

 

 

Any update on this? I was really hoping to learn more about why no one is building these. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Any update on this? I was really hoping to learn more about why no one is building these. 

 

 

Because it's an uninformed question based on a misconception. And it's compounded by the fact that we're in a thread that was based on a misleading premise.. Instead of asking us to inform you about the concept, why not look it up for yourself? Via a thing called google. or maybe GPIChat...

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Because it's an uninformed question based on a misconception. And it's compounded by the fact that we're in a thread that was based on a misleading premise.. Instead of asking us to inform you about the concept, why not look it up for yourself? Via a thing called google. or maybe GPIChat...

That's what I thought, thanks. 

 

I did look at the C40 website, scary guys over there. 

Be clear, there are no laws that restrict personal movement. The idea is to make longer journeys not necessary...

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Be clear, there are no laws that restrict personal movement. The idea is to make longer journeys not necessary...

The concern is not what laws there are, but what laws there will be if the folks at C40.org and the like have their way.

 

Is it your position that people should only be allowed to travel when it is necessary? 

24 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Be clear, there are no laws that restrict personal movement. The idea is to make longer journeys not necessary...

there never are when silly things are suggested & enacted ..

... until they are & modified ... for your safety of course.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I thought, thanks. 

 

I did look at the C40 website, scary guys over there. 

Do share what you find so scary?

 

https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/15-minute-cities-Debunking-the-myths?language=en_US

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

there never are when silly things are suggested & enacted ..

... until they are & modified ... for your safety of course.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about...I think you should look up 15 minutes cities

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do share what you find so scary?

 

https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/15-minute-cities-Debunking-the-myths?language=en_US

The ideology 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The ideology 

The ideology of what?

37 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about...I think you should look up 15 minutes cities

Obviously you still trust govts & corporations that have done nothing but screw you over & over again.

 

They yet to be honest or follow through with anything they've suggested.

 

Already looked up 15 min cities ... designed to control people with no life at all.

Where I used to live I Phrakhanong anything I wanted and could access in 15 mins has been turned into a condo or a coffee shop. So that is a big fail.