One of the arguments against single-family zoning is that separating housing from other uses forces people to drive to shops, work, and other destinations. Urban planners want to redesign cities so that people can walk to most of those destinations. They even have a name for it: the 15-minute city, meaning everyone can reach all of their primary destinations within a 15-minute walk.
Paris is such a walkable city with everything within 15 minutes of every resident, so no one there has to drive at all, right? Photo by Dr Bob Hall.
In a paper published last month, urban analyst Alain Bertaud has demolished this goal. Noting that Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo made this goal a part of her re-election campaign in 2020 and continues to promote it in office, he looked at the city to see what would need to be done to meet this goal.
Bertaud starts out by calculating that a person can reach about 740 acres in a 15-minute walk on city streets. Based on the average population of the municipality of Paris (as opposed to the urban area), an average of 77,000 people live in any given 740 acres of land. Within this 740 acres, there are an average of 59 bakeries and 197 food stores. There are also enough elementary schools to be within 15 minutes of every part of the city. Thus, there is no need to “create” a 15-minute city; Paris already is one.
So why, then does anyone drive in Paris? Bertaud notes that Paris has 1.6 jobs for every worker, with more than 51,000 jobs within a 15-minute walk of typical residents. Yet lots of people drive to work and more than half the workers take more than 30 minutes to get to work. Only 12 percent take 15 minutes or less.
The problem, of course, is there may be 51,000 jobs within walking distance of your home, but that doesn’t mean that your job is within a 15-minute walk from your home. Commuting makes up less than 20 percent of trips in the United States, and it is probably similar in France. That means, when people decide where to live, their work location isn’t necessarily the controlling factor.
Kamagra Oral Jelly 100mg is medication used to get difficulty to swallow the tablet. cialis wholesale prices viagra for sale Wait for an hour or maybe 40 to 50 minutes and then go for it. It gives instant and dramatic improvement in levitra purchase online their performance. The herbal teas can be useful sildenafil tab for rehydration and detoxification. No doubt the same logic applies to other possible destinations. I grew up within a 15-minute walk of one of Portland’s most prestigious high schools, but I decided to go to a different school that was a one-hour bus ride away. There might be 197 food stores within 15 minutes of where I live, but they might also be expensive and I’d prefer to save money by shopping at a hypermarket that is several miles away.
Bertaud fears that, when cities achieve the dream of putting everything within 15 minutes of every resident and these residents continue driving anyway, the cities will impose more draconian regulation to try to reduce driving. The mayor of Paris, for example, wants to make it illegal to drive through central Paris. France has also forbidden large booksellers from selling books at a discount so as to preserve the viability of small bookshops within walking distance of everyone’s homes.
Considering the kind of regulations we already have in the United States — such as the Oregon rule forbidding landowners in most rural areas from building a house on their own property unless they own at least 80 acres, actively farm it, and earned $80,000 a year from farming it in two of the last three years — it isn’t hard to imagine similar kinds of rules being imposed here.
Even if Paris already is a 15-minute city, the 15-minute policy would be a lot harder to implement in American cities. Other than Manhattan, no city in America has Paris-like densities of more than 66,000 per square mile. American urban densities averaged under 2,400 per square mile in 2010. That’s not dense enough to put all the services people need within a 15-minute walk.
For example, the nation has about 38,000 supermarkets, nearly all of which are located in the 105,000 square miles of urban areas. That about 2.75 square miles per supermarket, which is about 1,760 acres, more than twice the amount of land within a 15-minute walk. Thus, even if supermarkets were perfectly evenly distributed across the urban landscape, more than half the people wouldn’t be within 15 minutes of one of them. That’s one reason why planners have such a mania for increasing urban densities.
We’re not going to double urban densities, especially when the doing so will fail to eliminate driving anyway. As urban economist Edward Glaeser once wrote (as quoted in Bertaud’s paper), the 15-minute city “should be recognized as a dead-end which would stop cities from fulfilling their true rôle as engines of opportunity.”
Why do people drive. Because they make compromises. 1 million people do not or may not have access to what they desire in a given location accessible by foot. More sidewalks would not change that. With freedom comes indecision…and spontaneous decisions and chaos.
Chaos theory, in mechanics and mathematics, the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws. Also a new law… law of economics. A location may change location…. because of prices determined to be advantageous at a different location. If your dentist moves his office 2 miles further…. it’d be disadvantageous….for you customer aka traveler. But if cost of doing business is lessened upon consumer what’s two more miles for a transaction that may possess
– more convenient parking
– better lightning
– better location (aesthetically, financially etc
– reduced congestion
– accessibility to adjacent facilities……
Urban planners envision cities…then try to impose cities then watch the people flee cities. Economist Thomas Sowell Sowell said it ever so nicely. “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs”
Paris is 2.1 million in a nation of 67 million apparently We are not all Parisians. Yes American cities are dumps due to lack of adequate pedestrian infrastructure, decent livability and deferred housing stock. Not to mention a govt whose policies made the cities trainwrecks as they pilfered treasury and rewarded cronies.
“Thus, there is no need to “create” a 15-minute city; Paris already is one.”
In other words, you recognize the fact, that density does decrease travel distances, the fact, that there is a correlation between density and less car use, but you claim it’s an “idiotic dream”, because…???
“In other words, you recognize the fact, that density does decrease travel distances, the fact, that there is a correlation between density and less car use, but you claim it’s an “idiotic dream”, because…???”
Because the density increases commute time; increases costs by forcing people to shop at small shops rather than cheaper big discount stores; makes people live in small very expensive apartments.
For example, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Paris#:~:text=The%20average%20amount%20of%20time,is%2012%20minutes%2C%20while%2014.
The average amount of time people spend commuting with public transit in Paris, for example to and from work, on a weekday is 64 minutes. 15% of public transit riders ride for more than 2 hours every day. The average amount of time people wait at a stop or station for public transit is 12 minutes, while 14.% of riders wait for over 20 minutes on average every day. The average distance people usually ride in a single trip with public transit is 10.8 km (6.7 mi), while 29.% travel for over 12 km (7.5 mi) in a single direction.[8]”
So to build a city with small expensive cramped housing with long commute times on transit that frequently requires a heavy subsidy, create a high density so called “15 minute” city. The 15 minutes is only theoretical. Most people find they have to live, work, shop and play further than the 15 min walkable area.
For example, I visited some research labs in Emeryville California that were built across the street from a high rise apartment. The designer had assumed some of the lab workers world live in the high rise, but was surprised that non did. Generally, the hypocrisy of high density advocates is breathtaking in that most in the United States at least live in single family homes and are nowhere near a 15 minute walk to everywhere. As one of our San Francisco east bay county supervisors, amused at this, said tongue in cheek, “Most would agree that high density cities are a really good idea for other people.”
(1) Commutes aren’t all travel. When it comes to traveling to shops and services, higher density means shorter travel time.
(2) There is no law that says, that bigger stores are cheaper and smaller more expensive. The stores here in my city all cost the same as in the suburbs regardless of their size. This seems to be more like an American thing only.
(3) The price of housing depends primarily on the availability of land, housing and population density and has little to do with the size of a home. Second they depend on the popularity of a place. If you adjust for these differences, smaller homes are always cheaper than larger homes and thus save you money. An apartment in Paris might be expensive due to named reasons, but a large house would be way more expensive.
(4) What you do consider “cramped” others associate with low maintenance and few cleaning work, as well as proximity to shops and services and physical enclosure. Believe it or not, but not everyone desires to live in oversized homes on a big plot of land. Some people actually prefer a cozier lifestyle.
(5) US cities have widespread SFH zoning, which makes dense development a scarce good. Most other cities around the world did not participate in this madness, that causes homelessness and environmental destruction.
(6) Transit does require subsidies to stay alive, because transit has been marginalized by receiving far less dedicated traffic space than the car even relative to its modal split.
” Believe it or not, but not everyone desires to live in oversized homes on a big plot of land.”
Right. Only about 80% of the people want to live in a single family home.
PRAT
According to my own survey, more than 80% of people want:
1. A livable future for themselves and their children.
2. Less environmental destruction and pollution.
3. Proximity to shops and services.
4. As little house and maintenance work as possible.
5. Affordable housing.
6. No car-dependency.
That’s quite a survey. Presumably the other 20% want an unlivable future for themselves and their children?
” you recognize the fact, that density does decrease travel distances,”
So what?
Density also gets rid of back yards – is that good?
Density also spreads disease – is that good?
Density makes it impossible to have solar, wind and independent water supply – is that good.
Density provides lots of strangers in you neighborhood, making crime worse – is that good?
15 minute walk to a crappy job or 15 minute DRIVE to a higher paying job. Which do most people prefer?
15 minute walk to the store or a 10 minute drive to a superstore with a much wider selection and lower prices. Which do most people prefer?
15 minute neighborhoods has always been a crackpot idea. But city planners just love crackpot ideas.
1. Most backyard space is a waste of space and their lawns are a natural disaster.
2. There is no evidence, that density spreads diseases.
3. Density does not make it impossible to solar. It does not make it impossible to have wind. Independent water supply is unnecessary.
4. Yeah because strangers = criminals, right? Tells us a lot about your worldview.
5. The quality of a job has nothing to do with the travel distance. People used to live near their workplaces. A lot of these places were high-paying quality jobs. These days a lot of people have to drive longer distances and their jobs suck more.
6. Not everyone needs to buy a lot of unnecessary crap. For most people a smaller store is completely sufficient. Maybe stop chasing a materialistic lifestyle and your level of anger against urbanism will decrease and your happiness level will go up. Also the prices of a store have nothing to do with the size. This seems to be an American thing, due to the lack of competition in dense neighborhoods. Densification is a good way to increase the supply, create a competitive market and lower the prices. No wonder smaller grocery stores in other countries are cheaper.
7. The 15 minute neighborhood is my reality. You just don’t like that it works.
Were you born a fully formed adult? Five or six hours per day of my pre-12-year-old childhood were spent in my or one of my friend’s backyard. A green space with trees to climb but with mothers watching and listening from the kitchen window.
American kids are sheltered and never learned to explore and navigate a city on their own. Time to leave the protected backyard and become an adult person.
https://youtu.be/ul_xzyCDT98
Exactly. Why, I bet if you were a parent of preteens you’d let them wander around Chicago’s southwest side or San Francisico’s Tenderloin neighborhood on their own. Time for them to become adult persons, dammit!
What about stop wasting resources on policing expensive suburbs and rather focus entirely on American cities to make them safe? Also the Northern parts and the Loop of Chicago which are the densest parts of the city are also the safest neighborhoods. South Chicago has a suburban character.
Also the northern parts and the Loop of Chicago are the whitest parts of the city and are the safest neighborhoods, while south and west Chicago are the blackest and most dangerous.
Race and ethnicity across the nation
Density decreases travel distances but not commuting time. Read my paper carefully. The absence of use zoning in Paris allows bakeries to locate wherever there is demand, fine. But a city is above all a labor market. Nobody moves to Paris because of the great croissants and baguettes. People move to Paris because of the job opportunities. These jobs are not all located within Paris Municipality (2.5 million people) but are increasingly dispersed within the Paris metropolitan area (about twelve million people). The density in fact increases the travel time to jobs whether commuters use transit or cars because of the congestion it creates (congestion found in transit as well as on the road). Most Parisians, who have plenty of jobs within walking distance, choose lengthy commute by transit or car to get to their job. That is the way labor markets work.
See commuting time statistics for Hong Kong and Dallas-Fort Worth. Hong Kong has a density of 264 p/ha (one of the highest in the world) the average commuting time for the 88% of commuters who use transit is 47 minutes. Dallas Fort Worth has a density of 12 p/ha (one of the lowest in the world) but the average commuting time for the 98% of commuters who use individual cars is 27 minutes. Hong Kong’s population of 6.8 million is similar to Dallas Fort Worth with 6.2 million. Hong Kong has one of the best transit systems in the world!
This is not to advocate low densities. Densities are part of the physiology of a city; like some people are short, others are tall. Each city must adjust its transport system to its density.
You are comparing apples with oranges. In America most people have little ties to their cities, especially if they live in suburban communities which all look the same regardless what city you live in. Americans move way more often than other people around the world. It is no wonder that Americans have shorter commutes. They probably choose the place according to its proximity to the job. This is different in other countries around the world, where people have deeper relationships not only to the city itself, but also the neighborhoods they live in, which makes them less likely to move closer to their workplace.
Isn’t proximity to live, work, play exactly the marketing campaign by density advocates?
Hey, slaver, density increases travel times. Only a mendacious ideologue would use distance.
This is only valid for commutes to work. Stick to your childish moral philosophy and leave the real issues to the adults!
The obsession with being able to walk to stores, whatever value it had a century ago, is obsolete today. Most anything I want can be delivered to my front door. Much of it in less than a couple hours; even less than an hour.
Several hours…cute, I can walk to the grocery store down the street in less than 5 minutes. I would say your delivery service is obsolete for people living in compact mixed-use neighborhoods.
” I can walk to the grocery store down the street in less than 5 minutes”
So what?
Is it cheaper than a WalMart? More selection?
Or what if you didn’t like that store?
Yes, it is cheaper than a Wal-Mart. No it does not have more selection, but I don’t need a greater selection and if I don’t like the store I could go to the 4-5 over stores that are within a 10 walking distance.
Yes, it is cheaper than a Wal-Mart. No it does not have more selection, but I don’t need a greater selection and if I don’t like the store I could go to the 4-5 over stores that are within a 10 walking distance.
”
In other words, you recognize the fact, that density does decrease travel distances,
” ~utisoc
What sort of density are you talking about? To have enable people to walk to everything in 15 minutes, you have insanely high residential density. But then you have massive sprawl of all the other stuff. The latter becomes extremely resource intensive in a few ways that more than cancel out any possible residential gains.
I am talking about the density of the built environment., which then is followed by higher residential density. The 15 minutes city is realistic. The biggest problem are still commutes to work. Remote work can solve some of the issues. If you leave commutes out, the 15 minutes city is already reality and does not require insanely high density. In fact I am living in such city, where I have shops and services within 5-10 minutes walking distance. Using my bicycle it is more like 2 minutes. So nothing unrealistic here.
And density is the opposite of sprawl. Sprawl means extremely higher energy and resources use. Here you can for instance see that higher density decreases transport energy use dramatically => https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Transport_Energy_and_Population_Density_by_City.png
“Stick to your childish moral philosophy”
Oooh, big namey names here. Better a “childish” philosophy than one that seeks to enslave others.
When this person talks about “slavery”, what he really means is that this person doesn’t want to follow any social rules that seek to further and protect the common good. That’s why this childish person accuses those who want to establish and enforce these rules as “slavers” in an attempt to deflect from its truly immoral and selfish position.
Every time I hear some slaver parrot “for the greater good,” I’m reminded of a scene from Hot Fuzz.
A circle of people are discovered in a secret underground lair by the protagonist – torches held beneath their chins and black hoods covering half their faces. They nod at each other repeatedly chanting “the greater good!” after confessing to murdering half the village to win the coveted “Village of the Year” award. Their addiction to perfection and rules created a superficially idyllic, but ultimately violent hell.
The black comedy is meant to depict a very real ideological horror story where the pursuit of utopia justifies terror.
When civilization gives up on moral principle and decides to try out “moral outcomes” it leads the government to view individuals as subservient to the collective. Their rights and safety can be ignored so long as the “greater good” is being served. Once the individual is no longer sovereign, any group desire can justify the abuse of rights until citizens become nothing more than depersoned identities. This is the idea that sits at the heart of every collectivist regime.
So fuck off slaver. You’re the selfish one who wants to loot others for your pet projects. Pay your own way, slaver.
It must look awful in your head. All these irrational fears and hatred. But I have bad news you: You are in the wrong. There are no rights to violate the common good. Such a right is imaginary and only exists in your hateful marginal pseudo-intellectual philosophical circles.
I have no irrational fear and hatred. I just want you to keep your hands off my body and out of my wallet. Why do you feel the need to rape others?
There is no such thing as “common good” except for in the diseased minds of totalitarian slavers like you.
Nobody takes you seriously if you continue to write confused drivel like this.
Do you live in Paris or New york……
So you’re not just a slaver. You also have delusions of omnipotence if you think you know what everybody thinks. You always have to have to get in a final attack. Just like Trump! Classic narcissism.
Sorry but I don’t eat documents.
”
In fact I am living in such city, where I have shops and services within 5-10 minutes walking distance. Using my bicycle it is more like 2 minutes. So nothing unrealistic here.
” ~utisoc
Your idea of a city is stuck in the bell bottomed 8-track era.
What I need day to day, I get delivered to my door. I live in the 0 minute city.
Haha that was a good one, the 0 minute city, even Amazon One Day delivery takes hours for delivery. My grocery store is within 5 minutes walking distance. You are living in the past.