The MP and the 15minute city conspiracy

[Andy in Germany]

That'll be when there were no hospitals or schools for the poor, and most villagers were effectively slaves living a subsistence lifestyle from what they could grow or forage. Hardly comparable or enticing.

Hospitals, schools, and industrialisation, social care and workers rights didn't spontaneously come into being with the motor vehicle, despite what Mercedes would like us to believe. Trams, buses bicycles, trains and walking were all viable options, before the redesign of cities for cars went and messed it up for everyone else.

Astonishing as it is to us younger folk, cars do not equal civilization, and a lack of cars won't destroy civilisation either; the world of walkable cities only vanished (where it did vanish) a couple of generations ago. Believe it or not the NHS managed to exist in an era before mass car use. In fact with the physical and psychological issues caused by car use, not to mention adverse effects on children's health and education I suspect most heath services would be glad to see better urbanisation.

My kids all managed to walk to the local school, and when my daughter was born I was able to pick her up from the hospital on foot. (Before someone asks, no she wasn't walking; she had a pram)

 

[Dogtrousers]

In urban areas, most already fit a 15 minute neighbourhood in the most part, but the villages could never really achieve it, and they add a lot to congestion as they have to travel in to use facilities.

Indeed, if you compare my friends who live in rural Warwickshire. Nearest place you can walk to to buy anything (newspapers, milk etc) is a very crappy garage 1.5 miles away along a main road (fortunately there is a footway all the way). They live in a small village with a relatively thriving community but no shops at all. One pub, that has been converted to an Indian restaurant. And isn't very nice.

It's like being in America visiting there, you have to take the car everywhere.

 

[matticus]

Where are bears poo-ing these days?

 

[Andy in Germany]

Many people do their errands and other activities close to their work place, so presumably they'll have two or more options of 15 minute neighbourhoods.

This is one of the advantages of the system. Ideally, if work is more than 15 minutes away by foot (which for many people it is; it's been observed that people tend to live about 20-30 minutes from work) then the workplace would be surrounded by supporting industries within 15 minutes walk, giving options for lunch or shopping before going home.

 

[matticus]

I'm not convinced of that, outside of the town centres. There can be quite large suburban areas with not very much in the way of local facilities. And many late 20th century housing estates were built on the assumption people would have cars, so would not require local facilities.

This is exactly it.
Also, there are old UK market towns (not very big) that have been cut in half by some massive dual-carriageway, so it may be only 15mins walk across town, but that walk is made extremely unpleasant, even dangerous for the young/infirm.

Oxford is another example; they have publicly stated the plan to make facilities more accessible in certain neighbourhoods, to catch-up with the nicer districts (Jericho for one).

 

[Alex321]

Did you know this when you bought the house - or have things changed ?

We knew it when we bought the house - we only moved in June 2020, though we had started the purchase process in January.

 

[mjr]

I don't think there's room for an Amazon depot every 15 minutes.

I'm pretty sure one set of automatic lockers is within 15 minutes of me and I'm in a six-street village where some basic foodstuffs aren't available within 15 minutes. So, even here, it seems like 15-minute neighbourhoods should be possible if only the county's priorities weren't so farked-up and car-brained, or "motonormative" to use the current popular academic phrase.

 

[mjr]

No it is not The Staff cost vs Sales ratio is different for the different scales of shop

Yes, but "convenience" stores are usually the most profitable! Amongst other things, there's a smaller building and a smaller lot to maintain, with a smaller number of lines on shelves stacked (proportionately) higher up the space. So, in addition to lower maintenance costs, you've not got to send staff roaming huge parking lots collecting trollies, doing loss-leader must-do-to-stay-competitive tasks like click-and-collect or delivery picking/packing/loading, or in some extreme cases manning car park barriers.

That's why when a co-op needs to improve profitability (as the biggest one, Group, had to, when its bank was put into difficulties), it tends to be the biggest stores which are sold first, after the easy candidates like isolated stores on their own at the far end of a long supply lorry route.

 

[mjr]

In urban areas, most already fit a 15 minute neighbourhood in the most part, but the villages could never really achieve it, and they add a lot to congestion as they have to travel in to use facilities.

Two-thirds of King's Lynn's central car parks use is by cars from inside the town's bypasses, according to survey. It would be possible and I think worthwhile to make most villages into 15-minute neighbourhoods, but it's inaccurate to blame them for most of the congestion. I suspect this result would be similar for most "car county" towns, partly because the "car county" councils have actually moved facilities outside the bypasses, ironically making life easier for non-driving villagers but completely farking a greater number of car-free central residents.

 

[All uphill]

Twelve years ago we moved to a spot which gives us easy access to everything we need including a mainline train station. Our old Volvo got less and less use because it just wasn't needed, except for the occasional trip to the coast.

I also see community Village shops springing up all over the place.

We just need our council to wake up and see that lives can be improved by looking at things differently, and prioritising active travel.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Because social media has conditioned them to believe that anything that diverges from their opinion is "propaganda".
Because social media has told them that they're entitled to their opinion and you can't stop them stating it.

That's fair enough.

But in itself that begs the question "Why?".
Why is Social Media having such an influence?

Every pub's regular know-it-all was never able to maintain an audience for a sustained period, never mind have an influence.

I think it's not penetrating enough to simply blame Social Media. It may well be the tool of choice to spread information, or misinformation if that's more descriptive, but what is it about Social Media that encourages otherwise sane, rational people to adopt irrational thoughts and ideas?

I can think of one case where I have witnessed an otherwise sane, intelligent, independent thinking person descend into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and paranoia.

There are certainly the algorithims that "funnel" the content the user is most likely to engage with. Is that really it?
Psychologists tell us that associating with a group with common ideas works to reinforce and strengthen those ideas. Is that it?

Is there something else going on "under the hood" of segments of society?
Is it down to simple economics? Lots of "news" is free on the Internet. Why "pay" for content that is produced in accordance with the laws and ethics of professional Journalism when I can get "the real news" for free.

Or are we seeing too much of people's "Best Lives" and that makes us angry and want to lash out in any way we can?

Or is society becoming so divided that we no longer seek out the views of the "other", just simply dismiss them and seek to antagonise them by being deliberately provocative?

Some would suggest that the decline of (Christian) religion in the West, with its focus on deferral of reward, results in a move towards instant gratification and increased selfishness. Social Media can certainly be very narcissistic. The flip side is that many of the most Atheistic countries operate a predominantly Socialist system of Government and that Social Media can actually enhance cooperation and sharing.

It's all very complicated.

It looks like until we can understand the why we are going to be stuck with this for a long time to come.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Astonishing as it is to us younger folk, cars do not equal civilization, and a lack of cars won't destroy civilisation either

There are parts of the world where a sudden lack of cars would result in a civilisation destroyed. I'm thinking particularly of US cities where cycling is difficult and walking impossible a lot of the time.
There just isn't the infrastructure to encourage less car use.
However, and specific to the US (in my experience) there is also a "great fear" that travelling in the cocoon of a car can calm.

Infrastructure can be created or adapted but that fear isn't going anywhere.

People will need to see it and feel it before they'll adopt it.

The advancement of cycling in NL followed that process.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

That's fair enough.

But in itself that begs the question "Why?".
Why is Social Media having such an influence?

Every pub's regular know-it-all was never able to maintain an audience for a sustained period, never mind have an influence.

I think it's not penetrating enough to simply blame Social Media. It may well be the tool of choice to spread information, or misinformation if that's more descriptive, but what is it about Social Media that encourages otherwise sane, rational people to adopt irrational thoughts and ideas?

I can think of one case where I have witnessed an otherwise sane, intelligent, independent thinking person descend into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and paranoia.

There are certainly the algorithims that "funnel" the content the user is most likely to engage with. Is that really it?
Psychologists tell us that associating with a group with common ideas works to reinforce and strengthen those ideas. Is that it?

Is there something else going on "under the hood" of segments of society?
Is it down to simple economics? Lots of "news" is free on the Internet. Why "pay" for content that is produced in accordance with the laws and ethics of professional Journalism when I can get "the real news" for free.

Or are we seeing too much of people's "Best Lives" and that makes us angry and want to lash out in any way we can?

Or is society becoming so divided that we no longer seek out the views of the "other", just simply dismiss them and seek to antagonise them by being deliberately provocative?

Some would suggest that the decline of (Christian) religion in the West, with its focus on deferral of reward, results in a move towards instant gratification and increased selfishness. Social Media can certainly be very narcissistic. The flip side is that many of the most Atheistic countries operate a predominantly Socialist system of Government and that Social Media can actually enhance cooperation and sharing.

It's all very complicated.

It looks like until we can understand the why we are going to be stuck with this for a long time to come.

What your post misses out, are the groups that are not sections of society, that may be appointed or self appointed protectors of the public that also fall into many of the traps and holes you mention. Far too many decisions are made based on theory and academics, without full consideration to the human factor.

Another aspect that gets missed in these discussions is democracy. Just because some group decides it's for the good of all, that shouldn't exclude the views of the majority.

And on that note, I'll bow out before it's not my choice.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

And on that note, I'll bow out before it's not my choice.

That's a pity because I haven't a notion what you're talking about.

I don't understand who are not part(s) of society?

Decisions are rarely perfect. The best we can hope for is a reasonable balancing of the different needs, a good explanation of the rationale behind the decisions taken and a commitment to monitor results and improve.

Democracy is just that. Decision making by the majority. However, there are different types of Democracy. Perhaps that is where your issue lies?
In relation to city planning and traffic controls, they're all within the remit of local government which, as I understand it, is democratic.

 

[BrumJim]

That's fair enough.

But in itself that begs the question "Why?".
Why is Social Media having such an influence?

Every pub's regular know-it-all was never able to maintain an audience for a sustained period, never mind have an influence.

I think it's not penetrating enough to simply blame Social Media. It may well be the tool of choice to spread information, or misinformation if that's more descriptive, but what is it about Social Media that encourages otherwise sane, rational people to adopt irrational thoughts and ideas?

I can think of one case where I have witnessed an otherwise sane, intelligent, independent thinking person descend into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and paranoia.

There are certainly the algorithims that "funnel" the content the user is most likely to engage with. Is that really it?
Psychologists tell us that associating with a group with common ideas works to reinforce and strengthen those ideas. Is that it?

Is there something else going on "under the hood" of segments of society?
Is it down to simple economics? Lots of "news" is free on the Internet. Why "pay" for content that is produced in accordance with the laws and ethics of professional Journalism when I can get "the real news" for free.

Or are we seeing too much of people's "Best Lives" and that makes us angry and want to lash out in any way we can?

Or is society becoming so divided that we no longer seek out the views of the "other", just simply dismiss them and seek to antagonise them by being deliberately provocative?

Some would suggest that the decline of (Christian) religion in the West, with its focus on deferral of reward, results in a move towards instant gratification and increased selfishness. Social Media can certainly be very narcissistic. The flip side is that many of the most Atheistic countries operate a predominantly Socialist system of Government and that Social Media can actually enhance cooperation and sharing.

It's all very complicated.

It looks like until we can understand the why we are going to be stuck with this for a long time to come.

I agree. Post WWII there was a lot of research trying to work out why a whole country "turned bad". Some such as the Stanford Prison experiment entered folklore and has been repeated several times, others such as the Milgram experiment would never get past any ethics panels today. The Third Wave is one I'm not that familiar with, but addressed the same situation.

In comparison, there now appears to be a much greater credibility given to conspiracy theories. There were many around when I was little, but utterly ridiculous ones such as the Flat Earth theory, alongside various anti-vacc groups (gene therapy, etc) that go completely against common sense seems to be gaining traction amongst more and more people.

Yes, people of my age remember David Icke and his appearance (to be mocked) on Wogan, but with Andrew Brigden, Neil Oliver, et al (please add your left-wing lunatics here too) all pushing beyond the propaganda of Steven Yaxley-Lennon , Nigel Farage and Katy Hopkins (again, please add left wing firebrands here too), this trend seems to be heading towards the mainstream.