We live in an age when the most unobjectionable and necessary ideas for progress can give rise to paranoia and fear. If the most innocuous, unoriginal possible idea can fuel paranoia, how can we hope to have a sensible discussion about the future of our places?

  •  Bellatired   ( @ellabella@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is the first time I’ve heard of this concept. lemme check

    EDIT: I’m confused, this sounds like a normal city? Like, there’s a school, residential areas, convenience stores, a mall, a hospital, a forest, and green grocers just surrounding my workplace right now.

    EDIT2: Browsing the thread made me realize that this is about US cities. Now it makes sense. But it’s still confusing why this is a debate, life is much more fulfilling, more eventful with this kind of city.

    • This definitely to be a US problem as anywhere i’ve been in Europe every city has reachable necessities within 15 minutes. I assume it’s the same in Asia. I also don’t understand why would anyone except automotive company CEOs be against having everything necessary in close reach.

    • My understanding is that reactionary lunatics of the Q type have gotten hold of the idea and are convinced that it is part of a plan to limit people within particular zones, enforced by digital surveillance, as part of some grand Orwellian plot. I believe that is how the weird right-wing reaction to this started, anyways.

    • It’s another scare tactic scape goat for the right wing.

      I live in Canada and from my anecdotal experience we had a group protesting 15 minute cities pop up where I live. (our city has tons of sprawl. Very impractical to get around without a vehicle of some sort).

      They ended up just making everyone aware of the concept and there seems to be more support for 15 minute cities and redefining zoning laws now. So hopefully things continue to improve