Behind this clear and easily understandable idea lies a radical approach to reducing dependence on the car, encouraging physical activity starting with walking, and shaping cities that are more liveable, more environmentally friendly and more sustainable. But the critical voices that any disruptive theory is bound to attract warn against neglecting those who could be left on the wayside by this utopian vision: residents of towns and villages far from city centres, with poor public transport services and less favourable socio-economic conditions. Doesn ’t the 15-minute city risk marginalising those who, on the contrary, need to be better integrated?
In many cities, including Paris, which has long been a proponent of this concept, the neighbourhoods where the main principles of the 15-minute city would be easiest to apply are among the most expensive, both to rent and to buy. They are close to where people work, study, shop and relax. With the gradual gentrification of city centres, high rents and barriers to home ownership are pushing the poorest and most vulnerable to the outskirts, further away from job opportunities and the means to meet their needs. If proximity is to increasingly become a privilege, the 15-minute city must consider inclusion upstream to promote diversity, for example by building social housing. Especially since, while it promises to put ecology and sustainability at the heart of its programme, these already centrally located neighbourhoods often benefit from more trees, public gardens and cycle paths than the average. To establish itself as a model, the 15-minute city can only be seriously considered if it is accompanied by massive investment in infrastructure on the outskirts, as well as greater social diversity in the city centre.
In the same vein, what does the 15-minute city offer to those who are physically or practically unable to walk or cycle for 15 minutes, such as elderly people or parents with young children? This urban revolution therefore requires major (and costly) redevelopment of public spaces: the installation of ramps or lifts, wider pavements, etc. For this appealing theory to be applied, or at least to be able to consider certain develop - ments differently, cities must not overestimate the homogeneity of their inhabitants. Not everyone works from home or wants to shop locally. Some people may want to enjoy leisure activities a long way outside their neighbourhood. What about people who work irregular hours, at a time when the standard working week appears to be increasingly outdated?
Like many good ideas, the 15-minute city can be poorly implemented, even caricatured, to the point of shifting from a desirable utopia to a model deemed unrealistic, or even perceived as elitist. The challenge, then, is not to abandon the principle, but to square it with real life, consi - dering the needs of those who live, work and study there. So that the city of tomorrow is as fair and sustainable as possible for everyone.
