COMMENT Recent demonstrations in Oxford about the 15-minute city have been a fascinating take on debates around urban design, but the level of misinformation, and even conspiracy theory, is deeply worrying.
In truth, there are many successful, affluent cities worldwide organised around various 15-minute and 20-minute principles – from Paris and Copenhagen, to Melbourne and others. Many have also benefited from strong economic growth over past decades: investment has been plentiful and jobs have been in ample supply. They are not – in the provocative words of one Twitter commentator – “concentration camps”.
In the UK, many locations in the top tier of ‘best places to live’ league tables also benefit from the same 15-minute advantages, even though work for many residents is a longer drive or train journey with the wealth returning home at night.
But where our attention should be focused instead is further down the same rankings: on places dominated by single uses and lower levels of investment, particularly in sustaining and creating jobs. Life expectancy tables too often correlate as well. This is where there is greatest potential for meaningful change.
Urban centres
The 15-minute city is absolutely about fairness, equality and levelling up. It’s about managing the impacts of Covid, the changing characteristics of different generations, the over-reliance on boring retail and the dominance of the car. Above all it is about the health and happiness of communities.
At its heart are very common sense themes. People do want their services closer – not just corner shops but jobs, healthcare, education, retail, dining, libraries, sport, culture, public spaces. Urban centres must incorporate a focus on jobs and living as well as retail. The increase in home working means fewer people have to commute as much, so as well as retaining income this is a chance to create places that folk connect to far more, as they used to decades earlier.
For me that means towns and cities that have diversity at their heart. Surely it is only equitable that all communities have access to a mix of jobs, homes, services and places to enjoy life?
Walkable, bikeable places are also more sustainable, and while they may not suit everyone the health and environmental benefits are clear. Even though cars and parking are frequently raised issues, efficient public transport and safe travel on foot are essential.
There are other long-term advantages of the concept too: a well-designed place will improve wellbeing and health and support good education and jobs, which is, in time, reflected in valuations and pricing.
Oxford is a wonderful city, but there is a degree of privilege here that very few others in the UK can match. What’s being said locally should not devalue or distract from the strong fundamentals of this approach and its importance to those places across the country that need it.
Increased collaboration
Outside prime cities and affluent commuter towns there is still progress to be made. Change must come if urban centres are to survive and thrive, but it should be practical and positive.
This means – and maybe this is what we can take from the current debate – more collaboration between the public sector, private sector and the community. It is essential from an early stage to bring together different ideas and approaches properly – identify and incorporate new sources of funding and expertise, and reduce friction around delivery. We should embrace repurposing and retrofitting, making the best use of the historic and unique, as well as bringing forward new buildings and spaces.
Whether it’s 20-minute neighbourhoods, 15-minute cities or 10-minute towns of tomorrow, we should be focused on the fundamental principles of this way of living. There are fantastic people doing fantastic things right now, and these protests should not detract from their work.
Alan Harris is a partner at Montagu Evans
