Ever since Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and her intellectual lieutenant Carlos Moreno coined the term “The 15 Minute City” a few years ago, there has been scholarly literature on environmental and livability issues, urban planner forums and even the year 2022 The World Cities Report has placed the concept at the center of the debate. Today, every modern urban planner must – rightly – defend postulates of this magnitude: access to health and education services, utilities, leisure and leisure, and employment. All within a 15 minute walk or bike ride from the house.
Although this has become a buzzword in many cases, it is not an easily achievable goal in the short term given a model that divides the city into zones distributed by labyrinthine or spiral lanes, as is the case in the United States is and some urbanizations in Latin America. The 15-minute city is more of a matter of long-term discipline, a long-distance race, as planning must anticipate and institutionalize issues as complex as spatial planning, environmental policy, transport and multimodal transport, and most importantly, public participation in decision-making.
The frenetic urban sprawl race of the second half of the 20th century eventually resulted in economically invisible communities being cornered. It also extended physical and symbolic distances
In the discursive area, this clearly necessary concept succeeds in many other buzzwords such as smart cities, pedestrian accessibility, creative city, night city and startup city. Getting the citizens of a city used to creating a balance between densification and maintaining the areas necessary for a good neighborhood requires both consistent and constant efforts. Then city managers, politicians and residents are faced with another demoralizing question: How close is your city to Paris? The answer is obvious, there is only one Paris.
Developmentalism, the rise of Brutalism, and the frenetic race for urban expansion in the second half of the 20th century eventually cornered economically invisible communities. It also increased distances—physically and symbolically—rewarding the car and prioritizing enjoyment of the city, making it difficult or denying some residents access to the city.
Fortunately, urbanism is a vibrant discipline, and in recent decades subversive voices with isolationist consequences have emerged, such as New Urbanism in the 1980s, Smart Growth at the turn of the century, and more recently proponents of urbanism.
The most vibrant and democratic metropolises are those with the greatest economic opportunity, lower unemployment, and where residents and citizens respect their right to the city.
These three proposals target specific measures to improve urban development: New Urbanism sought to revive the spirit of the past by planning and designing passable streets, housing and businesses close to public space and accessible on a human scale. For its part, Smart Growth focused on transportation and planning of compact and passable urban centers to avoid dispersal, and sought political influence to achieve regional development. Finally, the creation of spaces took this a step further, focusing on the ability to create and manage high quality places to support socialization; the active, accessible and comfortable use of public space; and the narrative of the place.
Leading the way in adopting these currents in the United States has come primarily from the private sector and civil society, through real estate developers, business improvement districts, and organizations that promote public policy. A good example is Fairfax and Arlington counties in Virginia and their ability to be more flexible about the importance of belonging to the greater Washington DC area and the connections that are forming in the capital, as seen at Social Capital Index.
Reston, a privately-governed borough in Fairfax, is home to the regional headquarters of technology leaders like Facebook, Microsoft and Google, while Tyson’s co-existing innovation group resulting from the expansion of public-private partnerships is home to financial giants like Capital One Bank or Freddie Mac in the same county according to the Parkscore index with the monument protection of some neighboring historic centers such as Herndon or Fairfax City, with their urban markets or with the greatest access to green infrastructure in the USA. There is also an investment boom in Arlington County, spurred by the impending arrival of Amazon HQ2 and Boeing corporate headquarters, and multi-billion dollar investments by the state of Virginia in the technology campuses of Virginia Tech and George Mason.
Planning must anticipate issues such as spatial planning, environmental policies, traffic and transport, and most importantly, public participation in decision-making.
Even with that growth and fricative unemployment rates hovering around 2%, there are significant risks, spurred primarily by the exorbitant rise in house and land prices that have made the Washington DC area one of the most expensive cities in North America. These increases and new real estate developments bring displacement and gentrification, threatening the well-being of a segment of citizens, even though Fairfax and Arlington have powerful subsidized housing programs.
We’ve spent a number of years rediscovering that in order to be equitable and livable, cities should have basic public and private services within a fifteen minute walk, and that’s relevant and positive. It is also worth noting that in the US, traditional shopping centers are losing strength in favor of mixed-use urban streets. But it’s also good to remember that the most vital and democratic metropolises are those that have the greatest economic opportunities, less unemployment, and the right to the city for residents and citizens.
Follow PLANETA FUTURO on TwitterFacebook and Instagram and subscribe to our “Newsletter” here.