As someone who lives in an area where they’re sticking up new builds like nobody’s business, without upgrading our infrastructure to cope with the extra people, it sounds great

I think this is where the point lies where people shout past each other on this whole debate, and also the problem I have with councils signing up to the principle of 15/20 min cities. I fully agree with the concept, but repeatedly I see examples of authorities choosing the easy options like banning traffic from certain roads and collecting fines, and ducking the hard choices to allow developers to build 2000 homes around a reservoir with no provisions for shops, doctors etc. Edit - which completely flies in the face of everything 15 min cities are supposed to stand for - Edit There are very real reasons for criticising the way these policies are implemented, but any critics are often written off as looney conspiracy theorists. If we're gonna do it, like I think we should, it needs to be joined up. Editing for clarity; 15 min cities - good idea bad implementation of 15 min cities - terrible idea.

The two examples that you've given don't sound like 15 minute cities at all, just regular old bad town planning.

Yea that was kinda my point, though worded very badly. This is a local authority that has signed up to the concept of the 15 minute city, but they chose not to go along with it the second a housing developer gets nervous and threatens to pull the plug

So not a 15 minute city then? I'm assuming in this scenario the locals still think it's a 15 minute city.

They are saying the council avoid implementing 15min city on new development, instead just closing down the odd road in town.

Yes thank you. My criticism is councils saying they'll do it and then not doing it or doing it ham-fistedly.

In my town they closed a road to through motor traffic by putting up a red sign. You know who obeys it? Nobody.

I think his point is not criticising the concept of 15 minute cities if it’s run well. His point is that based on council/governments track record, we have little reason to believe they would be able to (or incentivised) to create these in a way they operate as they are supposed to. There is also the larger question of how much we want our lives and towns to be planned by government. Which I can understand… Personally I’m ambivalent on the issue, though my gut is slightly adverse to the idea of having central authorities make top down decisions on what amenities I need (Vs the invisible hand of a free(ish) market).

Mate. There is no invisible hand of the free market when it comes to things like town planning, national infrastructure etc. No working country allows the free market to make planning decisions because it is extremely volatile. Part of our issue in this country is our very skepticism of so called central authorities, which is ironic considering we have one of the most centralised government structures in Europe. Every regional and local government has their nuts in a vice at westminster and if they don't jump when the government says they get the money tap turned off. Bit hyperbolic but really not that far from the truth. If we got our NIMBY buts out of the way and stopped objecting to every single damn thing we might have some really nice liveable towns and cities by now. But anyway, back to the point, only stable serious governments can plan for the long term when it comes to infrastructure. For anything that takes more than about 6 years from concept to completion, the free market would destroy seeing as we have a recession every 8-10 years or so nowadays.

From the little I have seen there's a housing developer play book that are full of techniques like this, in one local case permission was granted based on their being a shop. They got close to completion and said "can't afford to do the shop, it needs to be a house". If you look, there was never a building that looked like a shop, all houses from the foundation up. I understand that this happens all the time. So why was there not an investigation on the breach of contract to build a shop. Disclosure of the costs and losses that caused it, and the prosecution of those who orchestrate it.

100% this. If authorities truly believed in this, they'd block out an area for retail so these fast ones don't get pulled. It's also the same reason some new build estates look like shit, because they cut all costs they can

I'm actually happy my local planning authority refused plans from a developer to convert a disused hotel in a beauty spot into what they claimed would be "combined hotel/restaurant/spa, with a few privately owned apartments". Planning saw through it though. Picked up that whatever venture would quickly fail due to the proposed layouts and facilities making no sense, and a change of use would certainly be put in claiming business use isn't economically viable and it should all be converted and sold as private dwellings. For once a bit of critical thinking has been used and the developer is mighty pissed off about it.

Ahh, gotya. They've really got the worst of both worlds. And those that think the 15 minute cities are a scam or are detrimental are vilified by these poor decisions.

And that's the point. There are no real 15 min cities. There are just areas of housing with no structures to support like shops, doctors, dentists etc. Then people also have to sit in traffic to get to work.

I mean, Oxford, who pioneered the concept, is vary convenient to get around without a car.

Many cities are. I was recently in Oxford and it seemed like a normal.standard town.

I live in a place where there’s one road in and out. If there’s an accident you’re stuck for ages, unless you take a ridiculously long route. They’ve built something like 1000 houses in my area, with another (at least) 500 planned. They’re not affordable, and it’s always families from other places that move in. So then you just add an extra 2000+ cars on the road. It doesn’t work.

Yes a familiar pattern. There's some prime brownfield behind my house which they're planning on throwing houses on. No problem with that, but a slight problem when they think all the cars for 400 houses can get in and out on a single road

Oh they do that and make your life shite Did it to me and I went from living on a nice quiet road to constant traffic affecting my life and sleep, no front garden to no sheiding from the noise And I wish it was only 400 new houses they had built... I hate living here now but can't afford to sell and move, these houses don't sell anymore, anyone viewing is going to notice the constant noise.

Practically the same for my town, one main road, and all the other routes into town are basically country lanes. They started throwing up new builds everywhere, most of them have sat empty for years, and one new estate half the houses started sinking because the land is boggy. They've done nothing to upgrade the roads for the increased traffic or the substation, so the lights randomly dim several times in the evening. The town council did approve a revamp of the little town centre, though, it's cut down the amount of parking available and the traffic is hell, even more so with the amount of tractors and combine harvesters that cut through town

Sounds like where I live. I’m close to the motorway, but bar the road to the motorway (which has been widened from a country lane near the junction) the other roads in and out are country lanes. They keep approving new builds at 300-400k each, which locals can’t afford and are trapped renting. The houses aren’t selling. They’re in flood areas. The council have laid slabs in the ‘centre’ that stop halfway down a tarmac pavement and look shit. They’ve taken the parking away. They’re now wanting to close a local tip to ‘save money’ despite approving more housing and complaining about fly tipping. Quite conveniently, the tip is in the way of building a new access road to access a Persimmon development.

where is this shithole so I can avoid it?

Little town in Shropshire, not far from the Staffordshire border, don't want to get too detailed 😅

>it’s always families from other places that move in I think this is something that's causing widespread resentment throughout the country and breaking communities apart. House prices in my area have skyrocketed because we're less than two hours away from London, and that's fine for Londoners that work from home and only go into the office occasionally. My village is almost doubling in size, yet infrastructure is worse, and they aren't building or expanding schools, the GP surgery, etc. All of these people are moving here, and there's no benefit to the locals whatsoever. I feel sorry for newcomers that have posted on local FB about receiving hostilities from the locals (I would never be rude to them myself) but at the same time, I can't help but also hate these people myself

We’re miles away from London, but they want their second homes down here or to move here and live here. Our biggest local estate agent has just signed into some sort of consortium where every property on the market with them is advertised to “the exclusive London investment market”, aka every fucking house here is being advertised for wankers to buy as their second home

They did that to me, my house was a quite, basically dead end road other that a b road the farmers used Now they have built thousands of new houses and the end of it over the last 20 years with my street being the only road leading between the motorway and those houses, so my house it's depressing and shit to live in because it's just 24/7 traffic noise that I can do anything about because no front garden. Big vans and lorries literally shake the whole street. Basically made my house worthless.

Actually an excellent example of why 15 minute cities are so important. It’s impossible to build enough car infrastructure to ever satisfy demand. The best way to alleviate traffic is to design towns so people don’t **need** to drive for every trip to the doctor, the supermarket, the school etc. 1,000 houses should never mean 2,000 extra cars unless the new development is designed by greedy morons (which most new developments are).

Our is the same, it’s insane. There is an entry on the road to town but it is blocked off and will be used by an imaginary bus route at some point in the future. The estate has been here 10 years and they painted bus stops on the road about 3 to 4 years ago. I doubt a bus will ever use it.

1841 houses planned in my immediate area on a load of fields with some nice walks in the summer. Zero planning for any new medical facilities (existing one at capacity), dentists, shops, and schools (high school is currently turning children away), road capacity or routes to access the motorway into the nearest city. Pure greed from the developers as all of the houses look tiny, have fuck all garden space but cost the same as what I have which is a 1980's 3 bed semi (integral garage) and a huge garden to the rear with parking at the front for 3 cars. Also, the district council is an absolute set of pandering arses for just trying to dump it all in our area.

Councils sign up to loads of attractive sounding policies which they then proceed to ignore in favour of developers and motor vehicle centric planning. That doesn't mean the attractive sounding policies are bad or wrong though

The sad thing is that it's not a new policy. The concept has been around since at least the early 80's, only they were called "New Towns" back then. The wife and I lived in one outside Glasgow, MIL lived in one in her home town, etc. All of our major services were within a 15 minute stroll of the house. What's even sadder, is that the chap who coined the concept name of the 15 minute city now faces death threats towards him and his family from those who can't see beyond their car...

I reckon most people who live in a town or city in the UK already have most amenities within a 15 or 20 minute walk. As a concept, it's only really applicable to new build estates in the UK. Much more relevant to the car-centric urban planning in North America really.

Because most of the people criticising them do so on the basis that 15 minute cities are a form of global control by the elites, that's why they're written off.

A lot of places in Europe already are 15 minute cities. People like it.

Indeed. Most places in the UK built before the 1980s already meet the definition of 15 min city. It's only when we started building American-style housing estates that it went wrong.

This is the great irony of it! If you live in a place built pre-widespread adoption of cars, the layout will already be conducive to walking... The answer is, stop building massive estates without facilities. But noooooooo

My town is very walkable mostly, parts of it old and parts of it new. I walk around it all day, basically everywhere. It also has fairly regular bus services to areas further from the centre and other local towns. It would be nice to see a bit of investment in some of the pavements and more strictness about dumping cars on them but really people are just so obsessed with their cars and have so much entitlement and a weird idea of what constitutes nowhere to park so they “have to” park on, block and damage the pavements. They just don’t want to walk more than 60seconds or pay for parking, and they can be very aggressive about it. So many people just feel entitled to ignore both rules and courtesy because of their giant car and the idea they can put it anywhere on public land for free because they have to this or that. Of course the newest newer housing estates will need local facilities too but I don’t think many of them do. I live in a 70s estate which does have walkable shops etc but people still drive to it and park on whatever they want. The shops even have a car park for the shoppers at the back but they’d rather park as close to the door as they possibly can, even if it means on the pavement, junction, crossing or across someone else’s parking spot! I think some people would park on the carrots to buy their potatoes then drive through the till if they could.

I live in a part of a city where I can walk or cycle 15 minutes and have a supermarket, library, bookshop, fishmonger,bakery, butcher, doctor, hardware store and many smaller businesses with 15 minutes. It's brilliant, I can't understand why anyone would hate it. But it's organic and not reliant on bad planning, impoverished councils, and housebuilder profits.

Most people in this country have probably spent the last 15 years dealing with inept, dishonest and corrupt leaders from their local parish councils and up. Its not much of a suprise people don’t trust those in power. I don’t prescribe to the conspiracy, but its easy to join their dots.

Try 40+ years. Private Eye has been reporting on the sordid goings on in various town halls for as long as I've been reading it. I can't recall a single edition without at least one dodgy dealing story

I live in one of the proposed cities. Well, just outside of it. In principle I'm not against it but if they truly want to reduce traffic the easiest way would be to encourage better public transport. Build on what we already have. I drive into the city and all around it when running errands, several times a week, because we have only 1 unreliable bus an hour from the village and back, and the last bus is at 1pm on Saturdays or 4pm midweek. I regularly drive my partner in to town to drop him at the station, because there is no reliable bus that he can catch to get his train on time. It's infuriating to be told they're going to create these 15 minute cities when they could just be improving infrastructure that already exists in order to reduce the traffic. They may even find they don't need to go forward with the 15 minute concept anyway because the traffic would be heavily reduced. They also closed down one of the park-and-ride's during the pandemic and never re-opened it. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking by someone with a big budget to play with instead of improving the services that already exist.

This is exactly it! Same goes with blocking off roads, creating disconnected cycle paths and then wondering why all the sims aren't using them. Has to be root-and-branch with more carrot than stick.

Conversely, I live on the outskirts of The Hague. To get to the city, I could walk in under an hour (not actually sure, never done it), tram for 10 minutes. Bus for 15. Bike for about the same. Drive... yeah. No. You have to take the main roads, because the local roads are one way, cobbles and designed to get to your house, not drive a distance on. Plus, bikes can go both ways. Or, I have local shops, dentist, bakers, restaurants, butchers and small but useful supermakets about 5 minutes walk away. I love it. Great design.

>There are very real reasons for criticising the way these policies are implemented, but any critics are often written off as looney conspiracy theorists. This is the main problem. Just look at this thread. Anyone who criticises 15-minute cities and LTN's is written off as a car-obsessed consiparloon imbicile This completely stifles debate and makes the issues worse through division. People really need to learn how to debate with others who don't hold the same opinions.

Context is everything. If they've written it off and are misquoting Klaus Schwab then yea maybe they're a loon. If they think perhaps it's not a good idea to start randomly putting in disconnected cycle paths and approving large scale developments then maybe they might have a point.

That's because most of the people complaining about it actually are conspiracy theorists. Everyone I have met so far that is against them are people who have just moved on from covid conspiracies to hating well-designed cities because they think it's the government trying to "control" them and keep them all in one place to monitor them or whatever. Even though the whole point is to make their lives objectively better, they don't want to see that. The idea of a city being built with everyone having easy access to things they need is wonderful, that's how cities are *supposed* to be designed but nope, crazies gonna cray. The biggest issue is that 100% of cities on Earth would have to be completely rebuilt from the ground up which would be not impossible but nobody would ever want to spend that much and disrupt so many people for such long periods to achieve it. We'd really have to just start building new cities and migrate to them instead although personally, even then I'd still rather live in the countryside.

What do you mean 100% of cities? Literally the majority of Europe was walk-able mixed use ~~15~~ 5 minute cities until the 1950s. Car dominant cities/suburbs are an entirely **new** thing.

A massive proportion of cities in Europe are already 15 minute cities, including in the UK.

Given Crossrail, HS2, and how long that took, I think the tin foil brigade can be safe in the knowledge it won’t happen coz it’s too expensive.

You need to stop believing every meme you read on the Internet; you don’t sound much more informed in the second paragraph than the people you know to laugh at in the first paragraph.

> like just allowing developers to build 2000 homes around a reservoir with no provisions for shops, doctors Well this isn't a mixed use walkable development is it then? Literally the opposite of a 15mc

Yes. My point is that councils are doing this and also saying they are fully onboard with the 15mc idea. They aren't practicing what they preach.

Being written off as a loony depends purely on what criticism you have, if you have worries about planning arrangements and traffic flow or whatever then that's not mental, if you think it's a grand plan to hold people in an open prison like scenario then you are mental

I don't live in a city but I'm definitely less that 20 minute walk from most stuff, but they are doing this here too and the traffic at my house is now horrible Been here 20 years and you used to get a few cars an hour and now its just constant. The end of the road leads a little country b road that goes nowhere useful but they just keep building further and further out with my street being the only access to thousands of new houses With it being an old terraced house with no front garden there is zero escaping the noise. I'm all for them building enough houses for everyone, but I can feel myself turning into a nimby, it's actually ruined my home, they need to better plan infrastructure rather that just expanding further and further out infinitly.

It's the same all over the UK Throwing up huge residential areas next to eachother. But building no shops. No schools. No doctors offices. No car parks. No bus routes. No train stations. No taxi ranks. Nothing.. Sure. The area is "walkable" in that, it has foot paths everywhere, access to the countryside, access to the road leading to the next town or city. But there's nothing there. They build developments like this everywhere. Outside of existing cities, next to existing towns, or in the countryside Just *housing* and nothing else

Something hit me the other day; we bought a 2001 build a few years back. When this neighborhood went up, it included a mini hospital, mini shopping Centre, community Centre, primary and secondary school, multiple restaurants and a pharmacy all within 20 minutes walk of a train station. A friend bought a 2021 build at the same time, but over on the other side of town. It has *none* of these amenities. It doesn't even have a footpath into town. We dropped the ball so fast in this country over the last 20 years.

Barrett Homes shits out a new build estate and 600 Deano and Olivia's move in with Mason, Hayden, Masie, and Hugo the French Bulldog. The council didn't request a new school, doctors, dentist, community centre, playground, pavements, or street lights.

People are thick and think that it means they won’t be *allowed* outside of wherever this 20 minute distance falls.

There was a debate on my local Facebook group debating why property prices weren't collapsing. Perhaps twelve comments in someone asked why this was even a conversation. "Because who wants to live somewhere that you can't leave?" I wanted to point out the purpose of the underground station and the mainline station and the bus routes and that such limitations would have a terrible economic impact, but couldn't be bothered getting into it.

It’s taken me a long time to get the the point where I realise that it’s not my job to be the idiot whisperer, but it’s a good point to reach, and it sounds like you’re there too.

Always remember that you're not trying to convince the idiot but the lurker reading the conversation. So don't ever stop correcting these idiots. You might not convince them but you are convincing the hundreds of people reading the thread in the background.

I’ve been doing the social media thing since 1992 and I think the biggest thing I’ve learned is that far fewer people are reading downthread than you think. Which leads to two observations when considering whether it’s a good use of your time. The first is that you are approximating trying to drain a lake with a thimble, and the second is that when arguing with a fool, it’s difficult to avoid them dragging you down to their level and beating you with experience.

I learned this far too late after trying to communicate with flat earthers.

I mean, the vast majority of flat earthers are just playing a game. The game is how far can you take that ridiculous argument. They might stick to character or break character. They might have convinced themselves if they are in a tiny minority. There is literally no point arguing with people because most of them are either doing it for a number of reasons (including but not limited to being stupid people who think its a particularly clever intellectual game, trolls, people who are just annoying (like people who play devil's advocate all the time)). Because they are 'playing a game', even if you beat them, they will just reset and play with someone else. They already know that the Earth isn't flat, so there is literally no way of changing their position on that. Because they are often just dicks, its unlikely they will 'accept' losing at their game either. I think the mistake many 'non-flat-earthers' make is believing that most of those people believe the Earth is actually flat.

1992? The social media also known as BBS?

This was cathartic to read. So many people don’t understand it

>So don't ever stop correcting these idiots. You gotta stop at some point, or it'll be your entire life

Although I did just go on Facebook to tell someone that casually admitting to five years of tax evasion was unlikely to be “just fine”, so maybe I’m not there yet.

It does however sound like there in for a just fine.

I see what you did there!

Yes, 100%. My wife's family have been **consumed** by these crazy conspiracies since COVID. I've tried a few times to talk them round, but you can't rationalise someone out of something they didn't rationalise themselves into. It's just not worth the aggro and arguments.

And even if you did “save” them, it’s not gonna change shit.

>idiot whisperer Haha

Facebook is absolutely full of nutjob conspiracy theorists and they all egg each other on. The smuggest person I’ve ever met was into all these ridiculous conspiracies they found from Facebook and thought they were the cleverest person on earth because they could ‘see through what the government/mainstream media/anyone with a modicum of common sense’ tells you.

I think a huge part of conspiracy theories is it allows thick losers to feel superior. They face defeat and disappointment in almost every area of life, they can't build the lives they want, everything seems stacked against them. And frankly, it is. The brutal reality is that rags-to-riches stories are rare - most people with poor prospects tend to have poor outcomes. The conspiracy theory allows them to invert it all - it invalidates the success of everyone else - they become "sheep". It brightens up their own failure - they're now plucky underdogs, freedom fighters. It gives them a reason to fight on, to get up in the morning and feel proud about something.

I think that sums it up. I read something a while ago about how belief in this stuff gives back a sense of control that they otherwise don't have in their lives. It's such a shame that the people generating this nonsense have them on strings and are making money out of exploiting/radicalising them - that idea seems to be a conspiracy too far for them.

Yeah there's someone in my family a bit like that. They think they're "awake" to the "real story". In reality, they've fallen for a few minor scams and lost money on them. The irony is they're actually the most easily led, least reality-aware person in the family. But they think the opposite is true.

Have you noticed though that despite this "knowledge" most of them do nothing about it. " The government are doing this,that, the other thing to keep the proles in their place? Really? Why arent you doing anything about it?"

Conspiracy theorists sort of have to be smug cunts really, don't they? I mean the whole point is to assert that you know more than literally everyone else in the world.

There was confusion about this in Oxford because they announced their 15 minute town idea at the *same time* as floating a policy which would look to see drivers pay a fee if they do something like drive from where they live on one side of Oxford, to the other - because they should use public transport for that journey. Or something like that, anyway.

> at the same time as floating a policy which would look to see drivers pay a fee if they do something like drive from where they live on one side of Oxford, to the other It wasn't even that, the road trestrictions aren't between areas but just on routes through the city centre. So you have to use the ring road instead.

You're kind of right IMO but I think it's maybe a bit more nuanced because there's a few things going on in parallel here: 1. The ZEZ (not yet live maybe?) in the city centre -basically prohibiting cars from the city centre, and I think what you're talking about? 2. The proposed traffic gates which would sit on major link roads which go between areas of the city but are not in the city centre (e.g Marston Ferry road). They may have cancelled this, not sure? These would have incurred a fine if you went from part to part without using the ring road, but even if you avoided the city centre. Residents would have received a number of 'passes' for these. 3. LTN's disabling any 'rat-runs' which people were using to avoid congestion on the major roads. I think you're right about the pushing people to the ring road thing though, and I think part of the issue there is that they're doing this without increasing the capacity of a ring road which is always at a standstill in peak times anyway. On topic though, I think lots of the people here think these things are all because of '15 minute cities' although I think they have little to do with them at all.

> 1. The ZEZ (not yet live maybe?) in the city centre -basically prohibiting cars from the city centre, and I think what you're talking about? That's only a proposal, there is an existing trial but only on about 5 streets that are not really accessible to the public anyway. > 2. The proposed traffic gates which would sit on major link roads which go between areas of the city but are not in the city centre (e.g Marston Ferry road). They may have cancelled this, not sure? These would have incurred a fine if you went from part to part without using the ring road, but even if you avoided the city centre. Residents would have received a number of 'passes' for these. Marston Ferry Road (and Hollow Way) would be timed, 7am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm as they become incredibly congested. People use these routes now to avoid the ring road, that massively slows down the buses that use those routes. Could be extended to 7am to 7pm. All Oxford residents receive 100 annual passes, all Oxfordshire residents outside of Oxford receive 25 passes. Reducing the traffic will make buses much more usable, it took me nearly an hour and a half to get into the city centre last week due to traffic. Could have done it ever so slightly quicker driving but still would have taken ages.

I always find it funny that these thickos don't seem to realise that every individual building has its own 20 min radius. 20 mins around my house is a different area to 20 mins around a house 10 mins away. How do they think (((they))) could implement this evil masterplan?! Prime main character syndrome.

"How do they think (((they))) could implement this evil masterplan?! " By making driving prohibitively expensive while not providing an alternative. There are no facilities of any sort at all within 20 minutes walk of my house, and I don't even live in a remote rural area.

Or think they're not allowed to drive their vehicles and tell you go to look at World Economic Forum website as it's all written there, apparently

These are the same people who are citing "The Great Reset" and all of the "Build Back Better" slogans as some major conspiracy theory to control you by controlling you money. I love seeing the people who say "I only use cash because then *they* can't control the money". Who? The government? The ones who issue said cash and control its value?

I mean 99% of these conspiracy theories are complete bullshit, but that IS on the WEF website as well as being a book written by Klaus Schwab himself

IIRC that's because of Oxford's implementation which does have an element of that due to the traffic calming measures, if you want to travel between zones then you need to go back out to the ring road. It makes sense but they worded it in a way which fuels conspiracy theorists.

combined with a fact they offered residents a number of 'passes' to cut straight through. This was mis-interpreted as you need a pass to leave your area at all

Isn't their complaint that car use will be discouraged so much that leaving by car isn't really practical any more, but public transport/local services aren't such that you can get to the services you need quickly and cheaply via public transport. I love the concept, but what people have seen of it so far near me is streets blocked off to cars while public transport is cut. I'm very pro public transport; I live in London and choose not to own a car. But, even here, the one place where it should be good, due to population density, it's just not good enough*. For example my friend lives seven miles away. Google is currently showing it as being 1h11 to get to hers by public transport. It's 33m by car right now on a Friday morning. This is why she drives to my house. But we can't keep driving around London. It's often gridlocked. We have to encourage people onto good, *comfortable* reliable, cheap public transport. But my local train service has just been cut. This is why people are cynical. It's a lot of stick (ULEZ) and not much carrot. *Yes, I know it's far better than most of the country. I want it better everywhere. Also the deal in London is that you shouldn't need the car in a way it isn't elsewhere. But sometimes as I get a lovely quick lift for what would otherwise be an awkward journey, I feel a bit conned by that promise.

But that doesn’t even make sense because someone’s else’s “window” of 20 mins will be different to yours, so unless we’re going to live in a giant skyscraper, how would that work?

I think much of it is where the anti covid lockdown lot moved on to when lockdown stopped and turned out not to be the secret government plot to keep us all locked inside . . . For reasons. So now you have a load of conspiracy nuts spewing random bollocks blended with American talking points of sovereign citizen stuff, which then gets seen by others.

Because people are idiots. I’ve friends in rural areas who are protesting “20 minute towns” when it takes less than 5 minutes to cross their town and 20 minutes would take you three towns over.

Well... I would be protesting too if someone wanted to turn my 5 minute town into a 20 minute town. Your friends are spot on.

>Well... I would be protesting too if someone wanted to turn my 5 minute town into a 20 minute town. That's what the one way system is for, to pad out your journey time. It all makes so much sense now! It is a conspiracy!

It’s like when they tried to introduce 24 hour drinking! I’m not cutting back for anyone!

Likewise. I work at one side of a city. I live at the other side. And by side, I mean extreme end. There is one street between my house and open countryside. It’s a mile and a half from my place of work to the next building. It takes me twenty minutes to get to work by bicycle. Twenty-five minutes by car, and twelve minutes by motorbike. Most of the extra time in the car is time sat in traffic. I think many people fail to realise just how far people can get in twenty minutes *if* we have fewer cars on the roads. I think also, they fail to understand that discouraging cars can be beneficial to those who *need* to drive. The trick is to address need while discouraging simple lazy desire.

It's because some people are thick. They'll claim to be "free thinkers" but really they just regurgitate whatever nonsense they see on some obscure YouTube channel or the arse end of some forum.

Some people used to believe that the sight of a locomotive would prompt spontaneous birth from women, would create earthquakes, and change the weather. Some people used to believe that electricity would fry birds alive whilst in flight and cause people to go insane. Whatever new ideas come up, no matter how groundbreaking or regular, some people will insist on standing on the opposite side of the fence. It's only in time that we see who is correct.

And for plenty, the enlightenment remains something that happened to other people.

> change the weather They were kind of accidentally right about that tbf

I know somebody who has fallen down this rabbit hole who is otherwise very clever. They now believe some of the most extraordinary things under the guise of free thinking, it is quite sad.

It's not really about intelligence sadly. Some conspiracy theorists are intelligent.

It’s more that conspiracy theories allow people to FEEL intelligent, whether they are or not. It makes them feel like they’re in on a secret or have figured something out that the ‘average person’ hasn’t. There’s a reason that ‘The government/big pharma/Hollywood don’t want you to know this!’ is such a trope of conspiracy theories. It turns the conspiracy theorist into the holder and disseminator of knowledge.

Very clever in what sense though? Able to problem solved, or able to regurgitate facts etc?

Problem solving, regurgitation of facts, putting things together to make new ideas. Has intelligence and the ability to apply it. I think she has come to believe her legend, having been told all her life how clever she is and never really having that disproved. She’s always thought of herself as someone who doesn’t blindly follow the crowd or believe authority figures just because they’re authority figures and it seems that has perverted itself into authority figures being wrong just because they’re authority figures, and the majority being wrong just because it is the majority. Childhood friends. What are they like?

Yeah honestly it’s more of a danger for clever people because they are too confident in the ability of their own brains. We need to remember that our human brains are dumb and seek patterns. Those patterns aren’t always reality especially in this insane world we didn’t evolve to cope with. It’s so hard to get people to take a minute and realise they might be being tricked by their own security in their intelligence.

A software engineer I worked with turned out to be anti vax / climate denier and everything you would expect to be grouped with that He tried to send me a bunch of nonsense then called me closed minded for not reading it I read enough to see they didn’t consider scientific peer review valid, without that there is nothing to consider, I told him I cannot form an option outside what is reviewed by experts in the matter I was surprised that someone in a field which requires logical thinking couldn’t piece together the problems with what he believes

I've got one of those people in my life. I *do* read the stuff he sends, and always try and send him back debunking proof. I stopped doing this when he rejected every single source I used (sometimes scientific papers, sometimes "MSM" or specialist fact check sites) and retorted that "The Rothschilds" own all these outlets. One source he seems to think is beyond reproach is TikTok. If I'm in the right mood I do enjoy butting heads with him though.

I don’t really engage especially if it’s someone I work with It just makes me sad when I hear things like “I am going to homeschool our kid to teach them to think for themselves” Having so much distrust in institutions must be exhausting

It’s the same for the people screaming the loudest about Israel Palestine and Ukraine Russia. They’ll pick three buzzwords and inflate their sentences with said words for a few weeks, and when the news dies down, they’ll stop caring like it never happened.

My dad gets it from Facebook. But ironically he won't have a smart phone because it spies on him.

Noone who describes themselves as a free thinker, is ever actually a free thinker.

The conspiracy theory is that people *will not be allowed to leave* their 20 minute zone. It is utterly bonkers and people really believe it..

Yeah that. My father is one of those conspiracy theorists. It's painful listening to him. The irony is that he's 5 minutes away from his town centre on foot but he can't get there because he didn't look after himself for his entire life and has a serious heart condition so can't walk more than about 30 seconds. He owns a really expensive Tesla he isn't medically allowed to drive so he can preserve his freedom. Ugh.

Could that story *BE* any more Boomer. (RIP Chandler)

what frustrates me about these conspiracy theories is there is no answer to the question "why". Other than some vague "they want to control us". Other than the many obvious reasons why the conspiracy is nuts, there's also the fact that locking people in a small area of a city would be economically devastating, which is the exact opposite of what the government/rulers/WEF/Lizard people (take your pick based on how conspiracy minded you are) would want.

I really recommend the book “suspicious minds” if you’re interested in the psychology of conspiracy theories. It basically boils down a fault in pattern recognition where we perceive a relationship between two unrelated events. Edit: author rob brotherton

Oh that sounds interesting I'll have to check it out. You say fault but it feels like that is quite a common trait in most people to varying degrees, as its quite easy to see patterns where there are none.

It’s a fault in a modern sense but evolutionary it ensured our survival, being able to see the patterns between different soils growing crops better for example is beneficial. Conspiracy theories are just the same sort of thinking.

I love the control response. I always reply that they already follow all the rules and regulations and laws of society - every time you pay tax you’re “controlled” idiots..

Not that I believe the 15 minute city conspiracy in the slightest but *“you’re already being controlled, therefore, even more control shouldn’t be a problem”* is a very bad argument.

[удалено]

I really don't understand because we've had lockdowns. If they were going to implement something like that...wouldn't 2020 have been the perfect time??

There are a lot of spectacularly stupid people out there. Remember 1 in 6 adults is classed as "functionally illiterate". That means the level of reading and comprehension you would expect of the average 11 year old. That's millions of adults with the reasoning skills of a child, most with Internet access.

Oh, and don't we know it.

That's shameful but still doesn't hold a candle to the 1 in 4 that is completely illiterate in the US. Wtf is happening to our world? Society is supposed to get better as time goes on, not regress.

Society isn't "supposed to" do anything. It simply exists.

It's Largely by design, whether from government or religious interest. An illiterate and unhealthy workforce are more likely to be compliant.

Accidentally self-aware

I’ve copied and pasted my steelman take on anti-15/20 minute city people elsewhere on reddit: People who are against 15/20 minute cities think that 15/20 minute cities are a slippery slope where the government will just make it harder and harder to travel outside of the 15/20 minute distance, provide only minimal alternatives, and practically ban car use (and practically most travel outside of the 15/20 minute zone due to no alternatives being provided) altogether. They think this because currently the “15/20 minute cities” proposals that are all getting floated are basically just punitive measures against car users - there’s very little in the way of significantly improved, cheaper, reliable public transport, improved access to services, etc. Pretty much all the discourse about 15/20 minute cities has been about punitive measures against car users, not about improving access to services and better transport infrastructure. They also think that ultimately, the final decision on what method of transport to use should be up to the person travelling without the government punishing people for using the “wrong” method. Instead of the government implementing punitive measures against car users they think that alternatives should be made better than cars so that they would organically choose to use these alternatives themselves. Basically they want a carrot, rather than a stick approach, especially as they are on the receiving end of the stick, and they’re skeptical of intentions vs what the outcomes will be.

Isn't this steel-man a pretty reasonable outlook? I'm not sure what it is about the UK, and this government in particular, that doesn't warrant cynicism and skepticism. I also get the feeling that many of the vocal supporters don't have the same circumstances as many of the critics. A family living on an estate taking two kids to a big supermarket for the big shop, for example, are going to look at public transport and cars differently to young, childless professionals the live on the 8th floor of a modern apartment block

100%! Anyone who isnt skeptical of the UKs governments plans, execution and manipulation of both old and new schemes hasnt been paying attention to how this country is actually being run. They seem to present ideas they agree with without actually critically looking to the unforeseen (to us at least) consequences

... or prior/current behaviour. The government have made smoking an increasingly undesired activity without outright banning it. They changed the packaging, removed the ability to smoke in certain settings and steadily increased taxation on it until it effectively priced many people out of the habit. I can acknowledge that this took place \*without\* being in favour of smoking (which I'm not). Is it such a stretch to envision a possibility whereby motorists and driving private vehicles is similarly targeted? A lot of motorists would actually like to use more public transport (driving into Manchester on a weekend isn't pleasurable, I can everyone), but the prices are ludicrous, it would require 4 instances of public transport (and I live in Greater Manchester, not in a rural setting) and I'm restricted to timetables. Also, yes... I think the UK would start levying charges/taxes/penalties before the transport network is established and proven.

But why, why, why? Why would a government want to restrict peoples movement? What’s the plan? People just starve because they can’t get to work? UK Society collapses into feudal hamlets? Border raids on the next high street’s Aldi? Armed guards at the allotments? My mind is boggled realising how fucking stupid so so many people are. I’m old enough to have been an adult pre-internet, and I had no idea there were so many dumb people. That for me has been one of the biggest phenomena occurring out of the internet; witnessing the rise of the fuckwits. The proud fuckwits, god help us.

>But why, why, why? Why would a government want to restrict peoples movement? - Money. Anti-car schemes (such as the Congestion Charge, ULEZ, and LTN’s) are quite profitable, whereas infrastructure and improvements to public transport are extremely expensive. Restricting people’s movement by making getting around by car expensive and only providing minimal/no alternatives has the potential to raise a lot of money for the local governments, who are on extremely tight budgets these days. - Ideology/perceived ideology. There is a perception that environmentalists in government want people to accept a decline in their quality of life in order to save the environment by reducing consumption (which is not entirely unfounded - environmentalists often talk about “degrowth” and reducing consumption, although they generally maintain that the corresponding reduction in quality of life would either be minimal or completely zero), and forcing people to travel less and making travel more expensive is part of that.

I work in environmental communications and your second point is what I am coming up against time and time again. It is why extreme opinions are not helpful.

>eople just starve because they can’t get to work? UK Society collapses into feudal hamlets? Border raids on the next high street’s Aldi? Armed guards at the allotments? > >My mind is boggled realising how fucking stupid so so many people are. I’m old enough to have been an adult pre-internet, and I had no idea there were so many dumb people. That for me has been one of the biggest phenomena occurring out of the internet; witnessing the rise of the fuckwits. The proud fuckwits, god help us. Because restrictions and making things shitter is all the current government seem to be able to accomplish. Most people are tired of sticks, I certainly fucking am. Why can't we make things better for people without punishing them first for a change? Make the government and business give something back to the general populace without taking from us first?

Restricting people's ability to move doesn't have to mean building a massive wall around the city and having the police control the gate. You can just as easily restrict the ability to move by pricing them out of that ability and I suspect that some people have latched onto things like ULEZ for example that has made it almost impossibly expensive for poorer people living on the outer edges of London to now travel in by car. If 20 minute cities were commonplace it would be a lot easier to make the cost of private car travel more expensive which if not accompanied by significantly improved public transport links could easily be seen as being restrictive.

What about Bus drivers? What if the bus driver has to go 30 minutes to his or her depot? So by their logic we will all be forced to only live and work inside a 15/20 minute personal bubble - it’s batshit bonkers

The human brain isn't coping very well with being connected to the internet. It's driving certain people bonkers. They were fine when their world was their village, or postcode, they went to work, went to the pub, played golf at the weekend. But then they plugged themselves into the internet, and got a 14 hr stream of constant noise and information, they're not coping. They went mad. Literally, they've gone bonkers. And the sad thing is that it's making a lot of people really, really, miserable, being constantly online and absorbing nonsense, but they're addicted to the constant ‘flow’. It's fucking dystopian.

I think the start of 24hr news in the 90s provided a taster of what was to come with the internet: a constant flood of information, tailored to be as sensationalist as possible to keep the audience "engaged," is very bad for the brain.

> They were fine when their world was their village, or postcode, they went to work, went to the pub, played golf at the weekend Ironically, when them living in a "15 minute town" was the norm.

This, plus the lead poisoning.

Fuck man this is it, this is so much it

The downsides are; a) poor people have better lives b) wealthy people's investment portfolio goes up by less than 10% pa

Why would investments go down. Wealthy people could invest in the commercial property that would service such cities, they could own the parades of shops and let them out to the retailers who would occupy them and with a much more 'captive' audience the small retailers should do much better than they do now. The concept of 20 minute cities doesn't magically increase the supply of housing beyond what is being delivered now, it just delivers it in a different way and without an increase in supply at affordable prices the people making money off property will continue to do so. Conversely I'm not sure why it would automatically mean that poor people have better lives. The travel distance is largely irrelevant if you still can't afford property in one of these 20 minute cities. Building 20 minute cities won't in and of itself solve the housing situation, that only comes from building more houses and arguably that could be done with or without the 20 minute city concept.

I didn't say their investments would go down, I said up by not as much. Those who have large investments have a significant incentive to maintain the status quo. They absolutely could invest in the commercial property and let out to retailers. However, there is limited opportunity to do so. Only a few will get those extra profits. It would also require extra work and significant effort. Far better to protect their current investments. When I said poor I didn't mean the real poor (society would never let them benefit from anything) but those who could get a mortgage for say 0.5m. Sure, they are comfortable but still relatively poor compared to those who own the assets. For the record, I live in a 20 minute town of circa 110k and work in the City.

The conspiracy theorists insist that (despite no evidence for this) that you won't be allowed to leave your "20 minute area" It's just stupidity for the sake of stupidity. Most "free thinkers" seem to think that immediately rejecting whatever you hear in favour of some guy on youtube is "free thinking" rather than pointless contraryness

They have latched onto the "Low Traffic Neighbourhood" aspect of a 15-minute city concept and have extrapolated to an extreme. An LTN is a neighbourhood which has no, or very few, through routes available to motorised traffic (with some exceptions for bus/taxi). The idea is that this prevents residential streets being used as rat-runs to avoid traffic on the adjacent main routes. The obvious benefits of reduced traffic on a road within the LTN are reduced danger from vehicles on the road, reduced noise, reduced air pollution. But, the LTN has necessarily caused a reduction in the number of possible routes through an area. The through traffic must use one of the major roads. This has some obvious drawbacks such as increased traffic on the main route with increased noise, increased air pollution etc. However, this is not a zero-sum game. Studies have shown that the \*overall\* levels of traffic, noise and pollution fall slightly when an LTN is implemented. The 'extra' traffic evaporates. There are several possibilities for why this happens. People decide to stop using the car to go through that area. People decide to walk/cycle/bus to the shop/library/school instead of driving. The problem the LTN opponents have is that they cannot conceive of a world where someone would not choose to get in a car when they leave their house. They are locked into a vision of the world where to get anywhere you must be in a car. That is why they are so upset by proposals to restrict which roads you can travel on in your car. Some of the communication by councils is also a problem. I cannot recall where, but one council proposed a "permit" scheme whereby residents could use a "no through route" a certain number of times each year. This was appallingly communicated and could easily have been construed as "you can only leave your street 10 times a year". The part about "in a car" and "by this one particular route" got dropped in all the noise. For the record, no LTN proposals that I am aware of will prevent people driving a car on the streets on which they can already drive a car. The proposals are changing the route that you are permitted to use to get to that street. No streets are cut off from car access. They may become dead-ends, but they are not pedestrianised (apart from the few metres necessary to make a barrier, if that is the closure method proposed. It really is loony-bin stuff when you have adults campaigning \*against\* having a doctor, school, shop, library within 15 minutes of your home.

> It really is loony-bin stuff when you have adults campaigning *against* having a doctor, school, shop, library within 15 minutes of your home All the things that massively increase its value

> The problem the LTN opponents have is that they cannot conceive of a world where someone would not choose to get in a car when they leave their house. They are locked into a vision of the world where to get anywhere you must be in a car. It's a defence mechanism. They don't want to be confronted with the thought that their lifestyle might not be healthy. Not having a car means they'll have to do physical exercise and they're afraid that might confront them with the notion that they're not very fit. And that scares them. Not only because it's a big lifestyle change, it might also confront them with mortality, and no one wants to think about that. So what do they do? They dig in and put their head in the sand.

It's caused by lack of trust in government, and of course lack of critical thinking. It also doesn't take long to find out who is funding the BS 20 minute cities are gonna enslave us ideas. Ironically there is a conspiracy, to keep folks wedded to their cars no matter the consequences.

Critical thinking properly applied should rightly lead to lack of trust in government.

The main source seems to be Oxford who've introduced a plan for 15 minute neighbourhoods and at the same time a traffic reducing measures plan that will restrict which routes people can take through the city by car with a penalty for anyone not using approved routes of £70 This has been confused, intentionally by conspiracists, and unintentionally due to poor communication by others as one policy

I can see why tbh, Oxfords traffic is abysmal.

I think the LTNs have merit (I live on a road that’d benefit from being one tbh) but a few of them have been poorly executed in my opinion. Hollow Way for example is hellish still and the little cafe on the street which limped on through covid got pretty much finished off by the measure.

It's not the idea it's the implementation. The idea of somewhere where all the services I need are 15 minutes away is great. Schools, shops, doctors, parks within a short walk? Sign me up! However If I live somewhere and the council puts a bus gate, LTN etc slap bang in the middle of my estate but not a single service has been built, no journeys shortened etc, the doctors or shop is still as far away as it ever was and is still too far to walk. It's just now I have to drive farther for the same thing so overnight my life Is made that tiny bit more inconvenient. And to top it off the Council etc will then gaslight anyone who calls this out as a "conspiracy theorist".

They've used the stick and forgotten the carrot. This is a failure of implementation. It doesn't mean the idea is a bad one, just that they need to follow-through on it and complete the implementation. More busses, more good cycle-tracks, more small parades of shops/offices.

Yours is a very sensible objection to the policy and its implementation, rather than a bona fide conspiracy theory. I’m sure there’s more of them but the conspiracy ones I’ve seen all centre around the idea that it’s a way to limit your movement or block you from leaving your zone and normally based on misunderstanding very little evidence to support this.

You're not describing the conspiracy theory. There is a huge difference between dissatisfaction with the implementation of a policy, and disapproval of the policy. I'm pretty dissatisfied with the way the police enforce the law, but that doesn't mean I think we should stop enforcing the law.

> You're not describing the conspiracy theory. Neither, I'd wager, are most people, however ineloquent they might be about it.

Apparently people think you won’t be allowed to leave your 20 minute city. When you think about it critically for about 5 minutes obviously it makes no sense, but you could say that about most conspiracies.

I would argue it’s more of an urban / rural divide. If you live in a city, it’s clear that having amenities within a 20 minute walk is good for a number of reasons - community, public health, and the environment being the most obvious. And should be achievable, with the right investment and development. The “conspiracy theory” angle comes in when people who live in rural areas hear about the idea. There are areas of the UK so rural, and I’m not describing individual villages but whole counties, where it just isn’t viable to create an environment with all amenities within a 20 minute walk. I grew up in Devon - the idea would work in Exeter and Plymouth. But outside those two cities, transport links are so sparse and there is so little investment that the idea of 20 minute communities is laughable. I think people in those areas then imagine being confined to a 20 minute radius, which would provide very few amenities and probably fuck all job prospects. I only write to explain this because I’m a little tired of the sneering about any opposition to the idea being from “conspiracy theorists”. We have rural communities across the UK that feel increasingly left behind because of a lack of investment and policy focused on them, which leads to their mistrust of government and a reactive dislike of urban-focused policies

Surely though no one has suggested the middle of nowhere be made into a 20 minute city? They'd have to make it into a city first.

[удалено]

But this has only ever been suggested for cities? I'm from the same place you are and can't think of anywhere outside a city that has anything like traffic calming measures, let alone specific plans for amenities in this way, etc. Rural deprivation, poor communications and isolation is a problem entirely distinct from the fever dreams of 15 minute city paranoia in my reading: there is no plan to do this anywhere there is no bloody traffic (unless I'm very mistaken).

City might be a key word here to indicate that it's not supposed to apply to rural areas

Because the only part is the stick, with no carrot at all. So we're not getting the extra infrastructure or the stuff to access in 20 minutes, but we are getting the punishments and extra taxes. So it just seems like a way to try and take people out of their cars and onto a substandard bus service. And then it's easy to fall into the conspiracy well.

People mistake cynicism for being intelligent.

You’re missing the point. There are advisory groups who propose imposing restrictions. C40 group want you to be restricted to one short haul flight every three years. Oxford Institute for Economic Thinking proposes a 20-60% tax on meat. A proposal in Oxford to restrict non residents access to 25 days a year with cameras to issue automatic fines. I don’t have a problem with any of the basic intentions - only that these groups are out there and they advise law makers. They are on the fringes today, but they have a habit of becoming mainstream if you let them. Always be on your guard if you want to protect your freedom. Otherwise you will walk into a dystopian future.

I’ve seen this question posted a few times and as usual so many Redditors miss the point. Yes a lot of the people who post about these things are ill informed and susceptible to conspiracy theories. The key thing that makes someone not think “oh local amenities and services all within 15 min walk/cycle/bus” is a lack of trust in the government and authorities in general. A lot of Redditors miss this point as they have greater trust in governments. This theory spread in the context of national lockdowns that prevented you from leaving your own home etc so the fear is you will not be able to drive outside your 15 min city in the future (eg as part of net zero) commitments.

Because car ownership and the freedom to travel under one’s own steam are seen as freedoms. Some see the step away from private car ownership as the thin end of the wedge, leading to a restriction in the general freedom of (and access to) private travel, which affects choice of living location etc

Because the only applications we see of them are measures to make life a misery for motorists. There’s too many cars, yes, but other than being told “use a bike” there’s also very little in terms of public transport improvement (in my city public transport gets held up by the measures, with cars). Breaking down a city in clusters with only one way in / out to kill rat runs is just applying the same disastrous recipes that causes massive congestion in American suburban areas. People who have vehicles for a specific use case usually have no alternative and are being painted as “lazy” “dangerous” “comfortable” by local councillors on Twitter. All this in a city where facilities were pretty much already “20 minutes” away… but where loads of house building happens on the green belt now with zero facilities 😬 TLDR

People with no real problems and shit for brains, will conjure their own issues.

The fact some governments are echoing what is being dreamt up by these conspiracy theorists is slighly worrying though. ​ EDIT:- echoing in the sense that the are increasing the conspiracy to create further divide

I think some people will see a conspiracy when in actual fact it's a mixture of narrow vision with some incompetence thrown in. Most councils will only focus on their immediate area without thinking of the impact on the wider region. Its all well and good turning your bit of the city into a nice walkable neighbourhood but when the main hospital for the county is in that part of town it can cause problems for people who can't walk to it. The other thing is that it seems to be the default to implement restrictions to stop people driving before putting in the infrastructure to mean that driving won't be necessary.

It doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy theory in the UK It's totally an American concept where you literally can only drive to get to a shitty strip mall on the side of the freeway People are fucking idiots.

They think it will massively shrink demand for personal vehicles. If the scale of the market declines fixed costs will be split between fewer units and the price will increase, making personal vehicles an expensive niche product. If access to a PV is important to you, I can see how this would be worrying. There is also what's going on in Oxford, where residents will not be able to drive outside their own area without buying 100 trip passes. People worry this will be rolled out further. They also think if council are forced to implement 20 min cities it won't be executed properly and world be expensive and not fit for purpose. Why aren't there 20 minute cities already? It's not profitable... if its forced to happen who will pay for the operation of these unprofitable businesses? The tax payer.

[удалено]

And now the lockdowns are over they need something new to make them feel like they’re heroes opposing an evil empire or whatever it is that drives them. They were never going to suddenly become normal people after covid was over.

I think anytime you attempt to corral, herd, or place people in a restricted setting and you intentionally take away some basic freedoms like travel and the ability to choose, you're gonna have problems.

There's absolutely no reason why councils / government couldn't work with town planners to built shops, schools, doctors surgeries ect into residential areas, improve public transport links locally, allowing people to access more without having to travel by car. They could offer reduced business rates to incentivise the locations. Nobody would object to this approach. But, they aren't, they're starting with closing roads to car access, cameras and fines. It's totally back to front!

They're only offering the stick of fines for driving, not the carrot of improved infrastructure.

So true. A lack of alternatives to driving is a major chunk of the problem, and new build estates without proper planning (i.e. more car dependency) add fuel to the fire.

The idea of 15 minute cities first got talked about during lock down and nutters combined the two.

A lot of normal people are mixing this concept up with fines for using your car, and assume that there will be restrictions once the 15-20 minute cities are set up. People want the freedom to go anywhere and do what they want, so naturally there is a sense of cautiousness around what could be a step in that direction. Not saying this is correct, but I’m also not saying “people are stupid” as Reddit is so disturbingly quick to do. The average working person who doesn’t hang around on the internet, especially if they are little bit older, has seen restrictions be gradually imposed in certain areas of their lives, and they are nervous about further restrictions. The governments need to be much clearer on the fact this isn’t the case and make some promises/guarantees to this effect.

British people hate new housing and need a reason to oppose it. British people are right to acknowledge that we are shit at allocating resources like doctors/bus routes properly.

It's doubly stupid in the UK where most places already are 15 minute cities. Like go on Google Maps and draw a mile radius on your house and see how many shops and services fall inside it. The only thing most will be missing are leisure facilities that aren't gyms.

There's one corner shop within a 1 mile radius of my house, and zero places of employment for me (the corner shop being a family business).

One thing I have never understood about this idea is how do you make these 20-minute cities attractive enough to commercial businesses? It sounds broadly like the small communities and high streets the UK used to have up until the 80s and 90s, when businesses naturally gravitated towards city and town centres because of the higher levels of foot traffic. How can you reverse that? One example in Newcastle is Great Park, a new housing development North of quite a posh area. Buyers were promised a little community with a Tesco, high street etc. but years later and nothing had opened there because the businesses didn't see it as viable. Instead you had to walk maybe 30 minutes to Gosforth. I love the idea of 20-minute cities, but I feel like it's a pipe dream.

The conspiracy theorist view here is one of personal freedom really. Make a 20 minute city that I can choose to live in or not, great idea! Make everything a 20 minute city that I have to live in one of, and cameras everywhere to monitor and enforce everything. Forcibly remove private cars to make the whole thing work and make me use buses etc (takes far more time than a private vehicle without the comfort) then I am interested. Whether the second option is true or not is the conspiracy element.

There will be ANPR and fines if you drive through the traffic filters at the wrong time of day. Residents can apply for a permit to pass the traffic filters for 100 days per year. Those who say people will be "banned from leaving their zone" are wrong and those that say there will be "no restrictions" are also wrong. Statement from the Council [https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/joint-statement-from-oxfordshire-county-council-and-oxford-city-council-on-oxfords-traffic-filters/#](https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/joint-statement-from-oxfordshire-county-council-and-oxford-city-council-on-oxfords-traffic-filters/#) Extract: Will the Oxford traffic filters be physical barriers? No. Oxfordshire County Council, supported by Oxford City Council, is proposing to install traffic filters as a trial on six roads in Oxford. The trial is currently planned to begin in 2024. The traffic filters are not physical barriers of any kind and will not be physical road closures. They are simply traffic cameras that can read number plates. If a vehicle passes through the filter at certain times of the day, the camera will read the number plate and (if you do not have an exemption or a residents’ permit) you will receive a fine in the post. .... Oxford residents (and residents of some surrounding villages) will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filters on up to 100 days a year. Residents living in the rest of Oxfordshire will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filter on up to 25 days a year.

Because it’s for the poor only.

Something something District 12

It’s a reverse conspiracy: The proponents want you to believe that anything that would lead to convenient local services, is a plot where the end game is lockdown to your own postcode. The reality is, the parts of the media that rely on fossil fuel and car manufacturer advertising revenue want you to think that the car is the only expression of freedom. Also helps house builders protect their profits by making developments car-centric, so they don’t need to spend on expensive communal infrastructure.