If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what?
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city. It causes an inevitable chain reaction that means the city can't be supported as the district is organized, leading to a resulting need for more enforcement, leading to more population, movement, and financial control, leading to tyranny.
It's like having a "little" price control. The price controls are self-defeating without totalitarianism. There isn't another way.
What you want is Localism. People live in small communities that have what they want. You don't get that with mass urban planning.
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city.
Not if the purpose is literally just to put everything in walking distance so most people can choose to meet their needs locally. 100% adherence isn't required, there is no chain reaction if there isn't a perfect success rate. I don't know why you insist on assuming top-down control that grips tighter and tighter if there's any deviation from the plan. I've told you I'm talking purely about infrastructure and incentive, a voluntary system that uses urban planning to encourage trends, not enforce adherence.
Yes, it's trickier doing it with urban planning rather than in separate small communities, and probably the biggest hurdle is making sure people are able to be employed locally. There's no perfect answer to that, but the ability to work from home helps.
I'm just saying if it's voluntary and not authoritarian, there are many potential benefits and few meaningful downsides. It would be an experiment worth trying if enough people were on board and enough resources were available. That's all hypothetical of course, but it's not an inherently awful concept.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city. It causes an inevitable chain reaction that means the city can't be supported as the district is organized, leading to a resulting need for more enforcement, leading to more population, movement, and financial control, leading to tyranny.
It's like having a "little" price control. The price controls are self-defeating without totalitarianism. There isn't another way.
What you want is Localism. People live in small communities that have what they want. You don't get that with mass urban planning.
Not if the purpose is literally just to put everything in walking distance so most people can choose to meet their needs locally. 100% adherence isn't required, there is no chain reaction if there isn't a perfect success rate. I don't know why you insist on assuming top-down control that grips tighter and tighter if there's any deviation from the plan. I've told you I'm talking purely about infrastructure and incentive, a voluntary system that uses urban planning to encourage trends, not enforce adherence.
Yes, it's trickier doing it with urban planning rather than in separate small communities, and probably the biggest hurdle is making sure people are able to be employed locally. There's no perfect answer to that, but the ability to work from home helps.
I'm just saying if it's voluntary and not authoritarian, there are many potential benefits and few meaningful downsides. It would be an experiment worth trying if enough people were on board and enough resources were available. That's all hypothetical of course, but it's not an inherently awful concept.