I’m terrible at summarizing videos so I would suggest you watch this one; it’s a short but detailed examination of the concept.

But basically, there are a number of good reasons to be concerned or disinterested in the idea, because a lot has to do with how and why it’s implemented. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

The value of walkable cities is evident: having every necessary amenity within a short distance from where you live, reducing commuting and focusing on public transportation instead of cars, which also allows for people of all walks of life to interact with each other to build community in place of segregation? Sounds lovely!

The problems arise when you consider the history of urban planning. She discusses those when she talks about how moving to suburbs in America effectively set up a divide in race and class as the poor, black community was forced into less attractive land while the more middle and upper class whites could flee to the suburbs. Critics of 15 minute cities would argue that this would inevitably happen, and there is certainly precedent in America for separate and unequal.

She also talks about how France has been heavy handed about assimilation into the culture that can be damaging to immigrants, and how more idealized notions of planned city development depend upon cultures mixing and engaging in conversation, not assimilation, and there’s something to be said about a government’s ability to make meaningful change without causing harm.

An issue that she didn’t bring up is how would those with disabilities live? If cities are designed to be walkable by reducing car access, how is someone who needs a car able yo get around?

I think the overall idea of severely limiting our dependence upon cars and a focus on developing local communities in an increasingly splintered era is an inherent good, but there definitely are valid concerns and criticisms to be had about the concept; it’s not just conspiracy theorists.