Mobility for All The Relationship Between the 15-Minute City and Mobility Justice
Masters Thesis Jonathan Hann University of Copenhagen
Mobility for All: The Relationship Between the 15-Minute City and Mobility Justice Masters Thesis May 2021 University of Copenhagen MSc Landscape Architecture, Urban Design Specialization Prepared by Jonathan Hann Thesis Supervisor: Natalie Marie Gulsrud
Abstract The 15-Minute City has been gaining attention recently as a tool for designing more just, liveable cities. The rapid urbanisation of the past century has created issues of sustainability, socioeconomic polarization, and exclusion, and the 15-Minute City is being presented as a potential solution. As the 15-Minute City is a new concept, a large body of research on the topic does not yet exist, and previous studies have focused primarily on sustainability and public health. However, as it is being adopted, it is important to explore its impact on mobility and urban justice, especially for the least advantaged. This thesis evaluates the 15-Minute City through the lens of mobility justice to explore whether it can be used as a tool to improve mobility justice in Global North cities. It is investigated through a theoretical review, an analysis of the underlying concept, and a comparative case study of existing examples of 15-Minute Cities. Using precedents from social and environmental justice, a set of questions for evaluating the concept is developed. The theoretical analysis and case study allow for a critique of both the concept and its operationalization.
This research suggests that the 15-Minute City can be used to improve mobility justice as it relates to the provision of daily needs, but the outcome is highly dependent on its implementation and connected urban policies. The concept focuses most heavily on distributive justice and would therefore benefit from the further inclusion of representative and procedural justice in order to fulfill its goal of repairing urban and social fragments. There is also a risk of exacerbating existing structural issues, such as the socioeconomic polarization between centre and suburb, if the implementation of 15-Minute Cities does not include representative and procedural aspects. The 15-Minute City and its implementing municipalities would benefit from more detailed, long-term analysis to determine the positive and negative effects of its policies. This thesis offers a qualitative framework to aid in that analysis from the perspective of mobility justice.
Contents 1 Introduction 2 Theoretical Framework What is the 15-Minute City? Planning Theory and Current Issues Transport, Mobility & Justice Summary
2 4 4 10 15 19
3 Justice Analysis
20
Quality of Life Improving Justice
20 22
4 Case Study Methodology Paris En Commun Plan Melbourne The Portland Plan Comparative Analysis Summary
5 Discussion Mobility Justice Findings Scales of Justice Suburban Context Limitations & Further Research
6 Conclusion 7 References
26 26 28 32 36 40 42
44 45 47 51 53
54 56
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The 21st century is characterised by urban living, with more than half of the world’s population now housed within cities (United Nations, n.d.). However, the rapid urbanisation over the past century has brought with it the issues of sustainability, socioeconomic polarization, and exclusion. In addition to the growing trend of cities adopting carbon-reduction initiatives (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020), there is also an increasing awareness of the importance of social justice in addressing the economic disparity and racial inequality present in many cities around the world (Sheller, 2018; Sisson, 2020). Linking these issues together is the concept of mobility justice. Mobility justice is at the centre of a broader discussion about urban justice (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020), specifically as it relates to disadvantage, exclusion, and accessibility (Pereira et al., 2017). 2
Mobility across neighbourhoods and regions is essential for 21st century life (Cook & Butz, 2019) but the built form and power structures of the past have created uneven levels
The freedom to travel is accumulated by certain groups at the expense of others of mobility (Sheller, 2018). This unevenness is seen in the spatial polarization of cities, where the freedom to travel and live is accumulated by certain groups at the expense of others. Mobility-based solutions that many cities are employing involve speeding up journeys across expanding regions or taking advantage of technological innovation to move cars
more efficiently and sustainably (Herriges, 2019; Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). However, this has a tendency to benefit some groups more than others (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020) and does not address the issues of justice for the least advantaged. One alternative currently being explored is the 15-Minute City, which aims to bring everyone’s daily needs within a 15-minute walk or bike journey (Moreno, 2019). Promoted as a way to improve urban quality of life and social cohesion, the 15-Minute City is growing in popularity as a city planning concept (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). Research on the topic has typically focused on environmental sustainability and public health (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020; Moreno et al., 2021; Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021; Weng et al., 2019). However, the links between the 15-Minute City and justice, which are a topic of criticism regarding the concept (O’Sullivan, 2021), have not been thoroughly explored. To address this research gap, this thesis will evaluate the 15-Minute City through a mobility justice lens. Specifically, it will explore whether the 15-Minute City concept can be used to improve mobility justice in Global North cities. The investigation will be presented in three parts: a theoretical review of the 15-Minute City in the context of planning theory and mobility justice; an analysis of the concept and comparative case study where similar time and proximity-based planning has been implemented; and a discussion surrounding how the 15-Minute City can be improved through the inclusion of mobility justice.
3
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK What is the 15-Minute City? The 15-Minute City was created by Carlos Moreno (2019) based on the theory of chrono-urbanism, and has been further developed by others, including the C40 group of world cities (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). Chrono-urbanism is focused on reducing transportation-related impacts on urban citizens, stating: “quality of life is inversely proportional to time spent travelling for daily needs” (Moreno et al., 2021). To accomplish this, Moreno (2019) suggests providing for everyone’s daily needs within a 15-minute walk or bike trip. To give a broad definition of what daily needs are, a set of six essential functions is proposed - living, working, supplying, caring, learning, and enjoying (see Fig. 1)
Four Components To accomplish the 15-Minute City in an urban context, Moreno (2019) outlines four 4
components: proximity, density, diversity, and ubiquity (see Fig. 2). Proximity relates specifically to chrono-urbanism and the goal of reducing time spent travelling. By bringing services and amenities into neighbourhoods where people live, less time is spent
Quality of life is inversely proportional to time spent travelling for daily needs travelling for essential purposes. This is a departure from past practices of separated, single-use zoning and urban sprawl which force people to travel longer distances and mitigate the additional distance through increasing the speed of travel (i.e. highway construction to connect remote places) (Herriges, 2019). The level of proximity needed
depends on the destination, level of need, and mode of travel, but the overall goal is reducing distances between people and needs. Improved proximity needs to be supported by the second component, density. For Moreno, each location has an optimal level of density to support the provision of daily services, ensure sustainable resource consumption, and reduce inequality (Moreno et al., 2021). A specific measurement is not given as it is dependent on context, but others have developed population density thresholds for transit or retail services that could be applied here (Government of Ontario, 2020). The key concept is that greater density reduces the costs of service provision and enables greater proximity. The third component, diversity, relates to both services and people. Diversity of services and amenities leads to economic vibrancy and ensures all needs are met locally (Moreno et al., 2021). Diversity of housing is important to achieve affordability and to allow residents to live in the same community through different stages of life. Diversity of culture and socioeconomic background means the neighbourhood is inclusive and open for all to participate. Further, Moreno holds that this diversity needs to happen at different scales, from the individual building to the broader neighbourhood (Moreno et al., 2021). The final component is ubiquity, which represents a decentralization of the city’s functions and a focus on local amenity instead of city-wide provision. Moreno (2019) characterizes cities as mono-functional and specialized spaces which do not necessarily cater to the
Six Essential Functions
Living
Working
Supplying
Caring
Learning
Enjoying
Figure 1: Essential functions within the 15-Minute City 5
Four Components
diversity of the local population. To address this, a polycentric city where needs can be met regardless of location is proposed. This does not, however, mean a city of neighbourhoods designed to be identical or mechanistic. Each neighbourhood should have its own unique identity and be structured in a way that serves the needs and desires of its particular residents.
Proximity
Combining these four components, proximity, density, diversity, and ubiquity, within an urban neighbourhood lays the framework for the 15-Minute City.
Density
Diversity
Ubiquity
Figure 2: Components for creating a 15-Minute City 6
In addition to the six functions and four components, an important element of the concept is the 15-minute measurement. Moreno recognizes that the specific time threshold is arbitrary, but research shows that there is a limit to the distance people are willing to travel within their community via active transportation. There is a growing body of research demonstrating that time (measured through distance) is the most important factor when choosing to make a trip through active transportation. A distance of 800m by walking (Gunn et al., 2017) and 2.5km by bike (McNeil, 2011), both approximately 10 minutes, is seen as the general limit for daily trips (see Fig. 3). Some destinations, such as community resources and transit stops, extend that limit to 15 minutes (Gunn et al., 2017), but beyond that, trips drop off significantly as mode shifts to transit and private vehicles. For the purposes of the 15-Minute City, Moreno (2019) uses a generic limit of 15-minutes for all functions with the understanding that it is more of a guideline than a strict boundary.
Overall Goals Moreno’s (2019) vision for the 15-Minute City has two broad goals: improving quality of life and repairing the inequity caused by car-centric planning. Basing the 15-Minute City on chrono-urbanism links quality of life to proximity and travel, with nearby, accessible daily needs leading to high quality of life. The 15-Minute City also equates quality of life with social bonding and nature proximity (Moreno, 2019). Walking and cycling within a neighbourhood leads to interaction with other residents and creates social bonding and cohesion. Less time spent travelling also allows more time for social activities. In addi-
tion, the psychological and aesthetic benefits of having nature nearby lead to increased quality of life. The second goal is addressing the urban inequality caused by the legacy of cars and car-centric planning policy. Moreno (2019) sees repairing the physical and social fragments of the city as an essential undertaking for the future and believes neighbourhoods designed around active transportation and daily needs will contribute to achieving this goal. Others have shared similar findings surrounding urban mobility, with transportation seen as a connective thread between a variety of urban issues (Moreno et al., 2021).
Proximity to Destinations
10-min Walk or Cycle
15-min Walk or Cycle
Figure 3: Destinations and distances that support walking and cycling trips 7
Implementation Plans and initiatives built around the 15-Minute City typically have three parts: the provision of services and amenities needed for daily living, a variety of housing of different sizes and costs, and increased active transportation infrastructure created by converting public space dedicated to cars. However, there are a multitude of different approaches based on the context, built form, and local needs. The C40 has established a set of guidelines for creating 15-Minute City plans as a key part of COVID recovery (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). Their framework focuses on data collection and participatory input to ensure the vision is grounded in reality, as well as creating local plans for individual neighbourhoods and prioritizing underserved and low-income areas first. The 15-Minute City has also become a key part of municipal planning initiatives across the Global North. Figures 4 and 5 show how the 15-Minute City is being implemented in different ways by members of the C40 Global Cities Network (2020). Three of these city plans, Paris, Melbourne, and Portland, will be analyzed in further detail in the Case Studies section.
Figure 4: Different types of 15-Minute City initiatives in Milan (top) (Kusmer, 2020) and Melbourne (bottom) (Melbourne Design Week, n.d.)
8
Ottawa Using 15-Minute Neighbourhoods as part of its new urban intensification plan
Paris Expanding the use of existing city amenities and reconfiguring streets and public spaces for greening and active transportation
Shanghai Creating a polycentric city of 15-Minute Community Life Circles linked by rapid transit
Portland Converting busy streets into Neighbourhood Greenways with traffic calming and green infrastructure to connect Complete Neighbourhoods throughout the city
Milan Decentralizing essential city services to be within walking distance of all residents and implementing new cycling lanes and pedestrianized streets
Melbourne Testing strategies and communitity partnerships through pilot projects to create 20-Minute Neighbourhoods around Neighbourhood Activity Nodes
Figure 5: Cities across the Global North are implementing plans and initiatives based on the 15-Minute City 9
Past Planning Theory and Current Issues Past Planning Theory The 15-Minute City concept can be seen as an accumulation of the human-centred planning theory developed over the last century in response to modernism, car-centric planning, and urban living conditions. Many theorists have proposed a combination of three elements: the neighbourhood as an organizing unit, the importance of diversity, and the links between quality of life, built form, and active transportation, as key to human-centred planning (see Fig. 6). Neighbourhood The 15-Minute City is based on the idea of complete neighbourhoods where “one has safe and convenient access to the goods and services needed in daily life.” (City of Portland, 2012, p. 76). Complete neighbourhoods typically include affordable housing, fresh food, commercial services, recreation opportunities and open space, culture and entertainment, and opportunities for civic engagement (City of Portland, 2012). This concept is
an important component of contemporary municipal planning, but the idea of the neighbourhood as an organizing urban form goes back over 100 years. Ebenezer Howard (1902) and Clarence Perry (1929) both used fixed organizing units in the development of city plans. Howard’s (1902) Garden City was designed as a 1200m circle around institutional uses and parks, while Perry’s (1929) Neighbourhood Unit was envisioned within an 800m radius of a school. Both envisioned self-contained districts linked to the broader region by trains or cars, with the Neighbourhood Unit being surrounded by commercial uses on arterial roads. Howard (1902) and Perry (1929) developed their respective concepts as a response to issues of urban living conditions of the time, such as poor sanitation and high pollution levels (Howard, 1902), and the increased use and speed of cars (Perry, 1929), with both responding by focusing on neighbourhood scale solutions. More recently,
Planning Influences Ebenezer Howard
Clarence Perry
Jane Jacobs
Neighbourhood
Diversity
Leon Krier
Congress for the New Urbanism
Jan Gehl
Quality of Life
Figure 6: The 15-Minute City is based on concepts from a range of past planning theories 10
Leon Krier (1984) and the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) (2001) have adopted the idea for contemporary cities. The CNU (2001) uses 5-minute intervals around commercial centres and Krier (1984) proposes a city made up of 10-minute communities. The neighbourhood can also be thought of as a social unit. Jane Jacobs (1961) defined the neighbourhood at three different scales: the street, district, and city as a whole. The street is most similar to the previous examples, where a neighbourhood forms around a cluster of local businesses or a ‘main street’. At a district level, the neighbourhood is a social and political unit. Jacobs (1961) stressed that the success or failure of a neighbourhood depends on self-government, and noted that a district should be large enough to have a political voice to mediate between the small, powerless street neighbourhoods and the large, powerful city neighbourhood or government. Because the city holds and distributes resources but is unaware of minute issues at the street level, a district made up of street neighbourhoods can ensure that local issues are recognized and that streets are able to participate in city-level decision making (Jacobs, 1961). Diversity Another important element of complete neighbourhoods is diversity, which also reflects past theory. While planning in the modernism movement focused on the separation of different uses (le Corbusier, 1933), more contemporary theory states that cities are diverse by nature (Jacobs, 1961) and that areas should combine a mix of uses and provide for all aspects of urban life (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2001; Krier, 1984). This is
important for the economic health and social cohesion of a neighbourhood, as diversity will encourage interaction between disparate social groups (Gehl, 2010; Jacobs, 1961). Without sufficient diversity, a neighbourhood may become inconvenient for local residents who might otherwise choose active transportation, which can diminish street level activity and create a perception of danger or neglect (Jacobs, 1961). Quality of Life Within a neighbourhood, there is a strong link between quality of life, active transportation, and the built form. The physical and aesthetic qualities of a space can encourage or discourage the choosing of active modes of travel. While some trips must be done via walking (i.e., from home to the local bus stop or from a parking space to a shop entrance), the remaining optional trips will only utilize active transportation when the city supports
It is impossible to take advantage of multiplicity of choice without being able to get around easily it as an attractive option (Gehl, 2010). This can take place in terms of the built form, such as short blocks, diversity of uses, and integrated public parks (Jacobs, 1961), or in more aesthetic forms, such as active building frontages, high-quality public spaces, and urban greening (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2001). A neighbourhood that encourages walking or cycling allows people to take advantage of the diversity and completeness and can encourage the creation of 11
new or improved public spaces (Gehl, 2010). However, a poorly designed neighbourhood can serve as a barrier. As Jacobs (1961) writes: “It is impossible to take advantage of multiplicity of choice without being able to get around easily” (p. 340). Thus, a built form that supports mobility, particularly through active transportation, is a key component in quality of life. Summary All of the theorists above were looking for solutions to issues of urban quality of life and car-centric urban design, from Howard (1902) and Perry (1929) at the turn of the 20th century, to Jacobs (1961) and Krier (1984) as a response to modernism, to the CNU (2001) and Gehl (2010) in the 21st century. Over the span of more than a century, these theories all recognize the link between neighbourhood level design, diversity, active transportation, quality of life, and social benefits. The 15-Minute City builds on these links to emphasize the aspect of time and the importance of proximity to specific daily needs. Other theories have similarly used timebased planning as a solution to past planning. Da Silva’s 20-Minute City takes a transportation-based focus, restricting and reorienting the built environment to increase accessibility (Moreno et al., 2021). The idea focuses less on the social interaction and proximity aspects of the 15-Minute City in favour of increased mobility through transportation. The 15-Minute Life Cycle City in China takes a health and sustainability-based approach to proximity, ensuring an efficient use of resources and opportunities for healthy living (Weng et al., 2019). Both theo12
ries rely on access to daily needs as a key to reaching their goal.
Current Issues The 15-Minute City also relates to current issues facing urban regions. Across the world, people and cities are embracing a shift towards more sustainable forms of transportation (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Cities are responsible for 75% of global carbon emissions, with only half of the world’s urban residents living with convenient access to transit and green space (United Nations, n.d.). Reconfiguring the way cities are designed and managed to enable a shift in everyday travel behaviour is essential for impacting global climate change (United Nations, n.d.). One solution being implemented is Transit Oriented Development (TOD), which focuses density and services around rapid transit stations. Increasing access through rapid transit is important for linking together large urban regions, but some TOD implementations are resulting in islands of walkability (Sisson, 2020). In these cases, the walkable urban form surrounding the transit stop does not extend out into the surrounding community, limiting the access to these areas by local residents. Too much of a focus on TOD also excludes those who are not in proximity to the rapid transit network (Wilson, 2020). Instead, there are calls to move away from the historic approach of long-distance mobility through increased speed to one of local accessibility through decreased distance (Herriges, 2019). When the distances being travelled are reduced, particularly within the limits of a 15-minute walk or cycle journey, speed becomes less important.
There is also increasing focus on the past injustice caused by historic planning and broader economic forces, particularly as it relates to central and suburban areas. The modernism era of planning marked a shift in the design of cities. Le Corbusier (1933) and others who influenced early 20th century planning sought to reform cities in response
The forces of gentrification have led to cities that are segregated based on access to resources
to what were then seen as poor living conditions and social disorder. The resulting rationalization divided the city into mono-functional zones with large open spaces separating buildings and uses. This created a form that was best navigated through the car, for which networks of highways were constructed to connect the disparate districts. In many cities, highway construction and other urban renewal projects, such as demolishing and rebuilding neighbourhoods, disproportionately targeted marginal and racial communities (Archer, 2020). The connections between new affluent neighbourhoods and employment in the city centre were enhanced at the expense of cities’ least advantaged residents. In more recent decades, the forces of globalization and gentrification have further contributed to the spatial and economic polarization within cities. The shift in the Global North towards a knowledge-based economy has extended the wage gap between high- and low-income earners
and created high demand for central urban locations within large, global cities (Musterd, 2006). The resulting increased competition forces lower-income groups out of a city’s most attractive areas (typically those that are central and well-serviced), and displaces them to outlying areas (that typically have fewer services) (Hedin et al., 2012). These and other forces of gentrification have led to cities that are segregated on the basis of access to resources (Madanipour, 2004). The richest citizens are able to choose the most desirable locations, while the poorest citizens are forced to live in the marginal and outlying spaces that are available to them. With regard to the 15-Minute City, many city centres and desirable neighbourhoods already have many of the qualities for which the concept is advocating (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020; Rudlin, 2020). City centres are typically denser, have a more connected street grid, and offer more services and amenities for residents than the surrounding areas. These surrounding suburban neighbourhoods (typically built after 1950, with low-rise, single-use zoning and car-centric infrastructure [see Fig. 7]) are lacking the proximity, density, and diversity needed to be 15-Minute Cities. The winding, hierarchical road patterns translate into longer trips and less direct connections for walking and cycling, and create a hostile environment for active transportation (Ledsham & Verlinden, 2019). A built form dominated by single-detached housing lacks sufficient population density to support services and amenities within walking or cycling proximity, and historic single-use zoning policies often prevent the addition of diversity in terms of use and housing form (Novakovic, 2019). 13
Many urban professionals have identified these problems with suburban areas and proposed solutions. There is also a recognized desire from citizens to live in more compact, walkable neighbourhoods (Brookfield, 2017; Toronto Public Health, 2012). Some of the proposed strategies involve adding density and diversity through redevelopment of underused locations (Dunham-Jones & Williamson, 2009; Tachieva, 2010), but this approach does not necessarily positively impact the areas with the most need. Beyond the previously mentioned issues linking increased desirability with gentrification, a development-based approach typically relies on private investment, which may target locations and projects that maximize profit instead of increasing qualityCITY of OF CAMBRIDGE GROWTH & INTENSIFICATION STUDY life for the city’s least advantaged. There may also be resistance from those who perceive suburbs as car-loving places and either are unaware of the broader social issues or have an interest in maintaining the status quo (de Francia, 2019; O’Sullivan, 2021). What is needed to solve these interconnected issues is a method of reducing the disparity between different groups within cities and providing for the daily needs of residents regardless of location and socioeconomic status. The 15-Minute City is seeking to provide this, however there is some doubt as to whether the concept will repair these urban fragments or increase disparity between the affluent city centre and the disadvantaged suburbs (O’Sullivan, 2021). In order to ensure that the 15-Minute City is for all city residents, it is essential to ground the concept in the idea of justice.
14
Figure 7: Suburban land use patterns and car-centric infrastructure create environments that are hostile to active transportation (City of Cambridge, 2016 [top] & Khan, 2018 [bottom])
Transport, Mobility & Justice In order to analyze the 15-Minute City and its relationship to justice, this section will introduce the concepts of transport and mobility justice as well as selected justice theories that relate to the 15-Minute City. It will conclude by developing a set of criteria with which to analyze the 15-Minute City concept and three case studies. Transport and mobility justice relate to the way in which people move and stay and the factors that enhance or reduce that movement or staying. More specifically, transport justice is concerned with distributing the benefits of transportation in a way that connects people to opportunities (Cook & Butz, 2019). To be just, the distribution should not favour or disadvantage one person or group over another and should provide everyone with the access needed to live a fulfilling life (Karner et al., 2020). Transport justice is focused on managing the externalities and benefits of movement, such as access to activities through increased mobility or impacts from construction or pollution as a result of the mobility of others. The complementary concept of mobility justice has emerged more recently, extending the notion of transport justice to the overarching power structures and relationships that impact mobility (Everuss, 2019). A person’s or group’s capacity to move or stay in place is affected not only by the distribution of transportation’s externalities, but also by a combination of social factors. There is evidence that certain groups are more at risk of mobility injustice based on race, income, age, and physical ability (Cook & Butz, 2019). These factors are intersectional and apply at a variety of scales, from the individual to the
planetary, and, when combined with institutional forms of governance and control, create patterns of unevenness and inequality with regards to mobility (Sheller, 2018). Thus, mobility justice seeks to correct these larger-scale disparities and address the structures that create and sustain them. These two concepts link with the breakdown of justice into three interconnected aspects: distributive, representative, and procedural justice. Distributive justice is concerned with ensuring the equitable distribution of outcomes (Karner et al., 2020); representative justice involves recognizing the variety of values, needs and abilities of those affected by decision-making (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020); and procedural justice relates to the ability of groups to participate in and influence the decision-making process (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Of these, transport justice focuses on the distributive aspect while mobility justice focuses on the representative and procedural aspects. Addressing all three in concert is essential for any concept or initiative that seeks to promote justice (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Therefore a combined definition utilizing the label of mobility justice will be employed (see Fig. 8), combining equity of access to opportunity with the political and social factors that impact the capacity for movement.
Three Justice Theories The theories of mobility justice have strong links to political and environmental justice, and the theories developed by these movements provide well-developed analytical tools for evaluating mobility justice (Everuss, 2019). To link mobility justice to ideas of the 15-Minute City, three specific theories will be 15
Combined Mobility Justice Definition Transport Justice Fair distribution of the externalities of mobility
Distributive Justice
Representative Justice
Procedural Justice Mobility Justice
Addresses structures and relationships that affect mobility Figure 8: A combined definition of mobility justice is employed, utilizing distributive, representative, and procedural aspects
investigated: Rawls’ Egalitarianism (Pereira et al., 2017), Sen’s (1979) Capability Approaches, and Karner’s (2020) Society-Centric Approach. Rawls’ Egalitarianism Rawls’ Egalitarianism (Pereira et al., 2017) is related to the institutional role within justice and is broken down into two parts. The first principle states that basic rights and liberties must apply equally and should guarantee as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedom of others. The second principle states that primary goods (defined as social conditions and means that enable a citizen’s life plans) should be distributed according to the difference principle. The difference principle states that inequality in society can only be considered fair if all members have equality of opportunity and if the inequality is to the benefit of the least advantaged groups. For Rawls, some level of inequality is unavoidable and acceptable as long as it is a result of personal choice 16
and not the result of structural or systematic factors. The concept of primary goods relates directly to the 15-Minute City’s six essential functions, as the enabling ingredients for daily living, but Rawls includes a broader set than just local services and amenities. In the end, both theories equate the meeting of needs as a key factor in providing for quality of life. Thus, for Rawls, the 15-Minute City should ensure that the essential functions are delivered in a way that enables a citizen’s life plans and benefits the least advantaged groups. Sen’s Capability Approaches The Capability Approaches take a similar position to Rawls, but shift the focus from primary goods to the individual capabilities of people. For Sen (1979), the goods and services provided by the state are a means to an end, that end being quality of life. However, to achieve that quality of life, an individual needs to be able to access and convert those
means. The simple provision of goods and services is not sufficient. Thus, the Capability Approaches suggest guaranteeing a minimum level of basic capability to enable the fulfilling of needs and personal freedom. In relation to the 15-Minute City, the minimum level is defined by the 15-minute walk or cycle trip, which Moreno (2019) assumes to be a reasonable distance that any citizen can travel. Sen (1979) also recognizes that the definition of basic capability and essential needs should be dependent on local culture. However, later theorists have suggested that, while culture and local needs should inform the definition, it is reasonable to identify a universal list of capabilities that any state should guarantee, such as freedom of movement, good health, and civic participation (Pereira et al., 2017). This aligns with the six essential functions of the 15-Minute City that, because of their broadness, could be considered a universal list that can be refined through local participation.
Rawls’ Egalitarianism
Karner’s Society-Centric Approach The previous two theories are focused on the provision of needs and enabling of quality of life through state-led actions. A state-centric, or top-down, approach typically includes governments and public-sector experts and uses analytical tools and established guidelines to equitably distribute the externalities of mobility (Karner et al., 2020). The state holds the resources and power to create change (through large budgets and legal jurisdiction) but can lack a detailed knowledge of needs that exist at a local level. A society-centric, or bottom-up, approach takes an opposing position, working to transform the structural conditions in which the existing actions and norms are produced and reproduced (Karner et al., 2020). This is typically characterized by social movements and non-profit groups working on behalf of disadvantaged populations. While the leaders of these groups have an understanding of their constituents’ needs, the groups often lack the power and resources to meet those needs and transform the structural condi-
Distributive Justice
Representative Justice
Distributing primary goods and other externalities through the difference principle
Defining a list of primary goods that reflects all needs
Procedural Justice
Sen’s Capability Providing or ensuring a minimum level of capabilApproaches
Recognizing differences in ability to convert resource to quality of life
Basic capabilities and needs should be determined locally
Karner’s Society-Centric Approach
Society-centric approach considers a broader range of perspectives, particularly from the disadvantaged
Society lacks decision making power and resources and needs to be included by the state
ity to achieve freedom of choice
Figure 9: Relationships between three aspects of justice and selected justice theories 17
Operationalizing Mobility Justice
tions in which they are created and recreated. Society- and state-centric approaches can work in collaboration toward shared goals, but are often in conflict. The 15-Minute City takes a state-centric approach, using a minimum standard that is initiated and implemented by municipal government. While the functions are designed to meet the daily needs of individuals, Karner et al. (2020) would stress the need for the inclusion of society-centric actors to ensure that the decisions around providing those needs are reflective of the specific needs of individual residents.
The three theories outlined above each interact with multiple aspects of justice. These relationships are outlined in Figure 9 and provide the basis for operationalizing the concept of mobility justice. To further combine the theories, a set of questions has been prepared as an analysis framework (see Fig. 10). These questions will be used as indicators to assess three municipalities that have implemented the 15-Minute City or similar initiatives (Paris, Melbourne, and Portland). The analysis will determine whether each plan addresses and improves distributive, representative, and procedural justice.
Distributive Justice
Representative Justice
Procedural Justice
Overall Question
Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged?
Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community?
Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?
Sub-Questions
How does the plan distribute primary goods and capabilities?
What participatory process was used in the identification of primary goods and capabilities?
How are citizens included in the decision-making process?
What is done in the physical realm to support increased mobility for all users? How does the plan identify areas/populations that are lacking in mobility?
Are special or disadvantaged groups recognized and included in measures or analyses? What is done outside the physical realm to improve mobility?
Figure 10: Questions for operationalizing mobility justice for case study analysis
18
What groups are included in the process? At what stages are stakeholders included in the process?
Summary The 15-Minute City is built on the theory of chrono-urbanism and equates nearby access to daily needs with a high quality of life (Moreno, 2019). This is accomplished through a neighbourhood that combines proximity, density, diversity, and ubiquity and provides for living, working, supplying, caring, learning, and enjoying within a 15-minute walk or bike trip. Together, these components will help to improve urban living conditions and repair the physical and social fragments of modern cities (Moreno, 2019). The 15-Minute City can be seen as a combination of past planning theories, including the use of neighbourhoods as a city building tool, the importance of diversity, and the link between quality of life, active transportation, and the built form (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2001; Gehl, 2010; Howard, 1902; Jacobs, 1961; Krier, 1984; Perry, 1929). It also links with many issues facing cities today, such as sustainability, confronting past practices, gentrification, and the future of the suburbs (Archer, 2020; Madanipour, 2004; O’Sullivan, 2021; O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). One unanswered question is the relationship of the 15-Minute City and concepts of mobility justice, defined as the combination of equity of access to opportunity and the political and social factors that impact the capacity for movement (Cook & Butz, 2019; Karner et al., 2020; Sheller, 2018). These concepts, combined with theories from political and environmental justice, will be key to ensuring that the 15-Minute City is implemented for the benefit of all.
19
3 JUSTICE ANALYSIS Quality of Life The central goal of the 15-Minute City is improving quality of life within cities (Moreno, 2019). Through the theory of chrono-urbanism, the concept equates increased quality of life with a reduction in time spent travelling for daily needs. This is achieved by ensuring everyone has proximity to the six essential functions: living, working, supplying, caring, learning, and enjoying. This idea is related to the three justice theories described previously in that it provides a set of primary goods at a minimum level of access. But this does not necessarily mean that the measurement of quality of life is just. In particular, it is important to consider whose lifestyle is being treated as the ideal. The 15-Minute City and other indicator-based measures of livability have been criticized for prioritizing the lifestyle of elite, urban residents who reside in city centres (Kashef, 2016). Moreno’s (2019) description of walkable neighbourhoods with 20
shops, cafes, and public squares invokes an image of a dense city centre that may not be representative of the aspirations of the broader urban region. There is generally a higher share of active transportation trips in city centres where affluent residents live, which in turn attracts residents who desire to live in a walkable neighbourhood. But the opposite is not necessarily true for suburban and car-centric areas. There is unmet demand for walkability in Global North cities (Brookfield, 2017; Toronto Public Health, 2012), and relatively high portions of households without cars in some suburban areas (Ashby, 2018). In addition to personal aspirations, the built form and infrastructure investment play a large role in promoting or suppressing active transportation trips (Krizek et al., 2009). In the centre, the street grid and more preva-
lent cycling infrastructure promote walking and cycling, whereas, in the suburbs, cul-desacs and busy arterials without bike lanes create a significant barrier (City of Portland, 2012b; Ledsham & Savan, 2017). Thus, the desire for walkability as a form of high quality of life may go unmet in suburban neighbourhoods because it is being artificially restricted. Reconfiguring the built form to provide for walking and cycling trips, if desired, is an embodiment of the difference principle, because it provides equal opportunity of choice for urban residents. Further, while the imag-
A just approach needs to prioritize the least advantaged
es promoted by the various 15-Minute City implementations often portray an urban elite population, the six essential functions are broad enough categories to fit any version of city lifestyle. The key point to ensuring justice when applying them is to ensure that they represent the specific ideals and aspirations of the neighbourhood and population to which they are being applied. While it is clear that the city and suburbs are not homogeneous regions, the question of justice for those residents who live in car-centric areas by choice and who desire a car-centric lifestyle remains. Is it just to infringe on their quality of life by reconfiguring the built form to increase the space for others? A utilitarian planning approach that focuses on maximizing aggregate benefit may resist reconfiguration if the majority of an area’s population prefers car-based mobility. However, this is not the case when viewed
through a mobility justice lens. According to Sen’s (1979) Capability Approaches, a minimum level of access needs to be guaranteed for all users, not just a majority, which is currently not the case in many suburban areas. The current built form limits the mobility of non-car users in favour of maximizing the mobility of car users, but not everyone in the city has the ability or resources to drive a car, and therefore access is not provided for all users. On a larger scale, Sheller’s (2018) version of mobility justice would say that maintaining the existing power relations in the built form and decision-making processes fails to address the unevenness present in the system and continues to create a city that is skewed towards one user group. For both Sen (1979) and Sheller (2018), a just approach needs to include representative and procedural justice that identifies and prioritizes the least advantaged and allows all users to share in the decision making. By guaranteeing a minimum level of access and prioritizing vulnerable road users, the 15-Minute City is focused on improving quality of life for the least advantaged. The specific measurements and outcomes need to match with the priorities of the local population, but the overall focus on basic access to essential needs ensures justice by providing quality of life for those with the least mobility.
21
Improving Justice Though the 15-Minute City aligns in part with the justice theories described previously, equal access to amenities through proximity alone is not enough to ensure justice and a reversal of persistent historical inequalities. Accessibility to daily needs via proximity is a necessary but not sufficient factor for justice as it only addresses distributive justice. In addition, the other three components (density, diversity, and ubiquity) are largely in support of proximity and as such do not address justice individually. All things being equal, the end result of a fully implemented 15-Minute City has the potential to be just, if everyone is included and is able to satisfy their daily needs. However, without consideration for the representative and procedural justice aspects, the conversion of an urban area from its current state into a fully implemented 15-Minute City may not occur in a just way. In order to ensure justice throughout the process, the distributional aspects need to be extended, and procedural and representative justice need to be included. This can be accomplished through a recognition of the differences of ability, a change in decision making structures to include marginal voices in society, and a recognition that some areas or groups require more and/or earlier investment through implementation priority.
Differences of Ability The 15-Minute City deals with distributive justice by setting a time-based minimum for service provision, but by treating everyone as equal, the concept does not take into account the differences in mobility that are highlighted through the Capability Approaches (Sen, 1979). Proximity to a desired 22
resource, in the form of local services and amenities, is necessary for urban quality of life. However, it does not guarantee that a resident can navigate through the urban environment in order to convert that available resource into the desired outcome. For example, not having a wheelchair accessible route, not being able to afford a bike, or not being able to understand a bus system may block a user from reaching a destination, even if it is within a 15-minute journey. Thus, proximity also requires that an individual has the capability to convert that proximity into a resource. To its credit, the 15-Minute City is attempting to solve the problems of uneven capability and past planning injustice by making essential services and amenities available to all residents. Some urban areas, particularly outlying or suburban neighbourhoods, may be very deficient in terms of the six essential functions, in which case providing any amenity can improve the local quality of life. In addition, focusing efforts on reallocating vehicle space to active transportation infrastructure can have an enabling effect for some residents. However, adding amenities and creating infrastructure is only the first step in accounting for differences in capability. It is essential to ask whether or not initiatives are useful and beneficial for local residents’ needs.
State-Centric to Society-Centric One of the methods of identifying and responding to citizen needs is by including a society-centric approach to planning (Karner et al., 2020). The 15-Minute City can be seen as a state-centric concept, as it establishes a top-down minimum standard for services
and is typically initiated and implemented at the municipal or regional government level. In this way, the state holds the resources and power to implement change, but still needs to understand specific needs and to include others in decision making. To improve the procedural and representative justice of
Any shift towards local accessibility and improving urban quality of life needs to include society and collective decision making the 15-Minute City concept, it needs to include society-centric measures, focused on bottom-up input and citizen decision making. This not only allows for a municipality to identify issues relating to insufficient services and capability, it also helps to give legitimacy to actions by including the voices of residents who may not have the social and political power to be included in traditional decision-making processes. (Karner et al., 2020). By combining state-centric and society-centric approaches, the 15-Minute City can work towards the distributive goals of the state and the representative and procedural goals of society. This can be accomplished in two ways (Karner et al., 2020). The first involves working within the existing state framework, through advisory committees, public engagement, and participatory budgeting. The second method works outside of this framework in the form of advocacy groups and social movements. Initiatives can also move from one method to the other, such
as a public advocacy campaign leading to a municipality adopting a cause into its formal planning process. Regardless of the method, it is important to recognize that state- or society-centric alone is not the answer. State-centric solutions alone have a history of failure, with decades of past planning not solving underlying issues around justice (Karner et al., 2020). The 15-Minute City’s goal of repairing urban and social fabrics is evidence of this past injustice. Society-centric alone also has issues around representation and decision-making. No community is monolithic and not all community organizations are acting in the interest of marginal or disadvantaged voices. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) movement, for example, has been criticized for regressive actions, such as opposing the construction of affordable housing (Karner et al., 2020). Thus, a balance of voices from various perspectives are needed to ensure that all perspectives are included. Any shift towards local accessibility and improving urban quality of life needs to include society and collective decision making. For the 15-Minute City, this could include defining the indicators for the six essential functions based on local input or identifying a set of existing barriers that could prevent an individual from taking advantage of a destination within 15 minutes. This is happening to varying degrees in the implementation of the concept (as will be investigated in the Case Study section) but is not necessarily included in Moreno’s underlying theory.
23
Implementation Priority Once the local needs are identified via a society-centric approach, it is essential to implement the 15-Minute City in areas that have the most need. Current planning initiatives, such as city services and infrastructure, are often applied through an equality or utilitarian lens, ensuring an equal distribution regardless of need or aiming to maximize aggregate benefit for society (Pereira et al., 2017). However, a justice-based approach would see Rawls’ difference principle (Pereira et al., 2017) applied to prioritization. This would define a fair implementation as one that prioritizes the least advantaged over simple distributional equality. The 15-Minute City concept has been criticized for worsening socioeconomic polarization by focusing on areas and groups that are closest to the 15-minute goal (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020; Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). Areas that already have the necessary components to support a 15-Minute City, such as density and walkable built form, are also typically more affluent and less in need of improvements to quality of life (City of Portland, 2012b; O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Further, development-based solutions for adding density, as a necessary component for proximity, may favour these areas in order to satisfy housing demand and maximize profit (City of Portland, 2012a). Instead, the 15-Minute City needs to focus its implementation on areas and populations that are furthest from the 15-minute goal in terms of services and mobility. Outlying urban areas tend to have a greater need for basic services (Weng et al., 2019) and also tend to have lower investment in active transportation infrastructure (City of Port24
land, 2012b; Ledsham & Savan, 2017). The built form, lower density, and single-use zoning of these areas makes them more difficult to transition to a walkable form, but that also means they are less conducive to the active transportation on which the 15-Minute City relies. The concept partly addresses this by shifting space from cars to active transportation. Rebalancing public space towards more vulnerable users (i.e., pedestrians and cyclists) benefits the least advantaged road user and lines up with the difference principle. But if this infrastructure is only built in areas that are already walkable and bikeable, because the implementation is based on existing users and not the areas of greatest need, then it is only increasing mobility justice for a privileged subset of the population. By focusing the initiatives on areas that are furthest from the 15-Minute City’s components and essential functions, the concept can be used to increase mobility justice for the least advantaged, and reverse the current planning trend that links mobility and access to economic capital.
Key Findings Quality of Life The 15-Minute City represents a universal minimum access level for all users and is supported by a broad desire for more walkable neighbourhoods Improving Justice Recognize and account for differences in ability in accessing mobility and proximate resources Include both state and society in decison-making to balance the power of the state with the knowledge of society Focus on those furthest away from the 15-minute goal first, in particular underserved populations and outlying areas
25
4 CASE STUDY Methodology In order to further analyze the 15-Minute City and its relationship to mobility justice, a comparative case study was undertaken. This case study looked at three cities that have implemented the 15-Minute City or related 20-Minute City concepts. A case study approach was used because it allows for a detailed analysis of a theory’s operationalization (Burton, 2011). Though the 15-Minute City is a relatively new concept in urban planning, there are several examples of cities that have begun to implement it, and a case study allowed for an examination within a real-world context. Conducting the study under the mobility justice framework also fills a gap in existing research surrounding the 15-Minute City, which focuses largely on environmental sustainability and public health (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020; Moreno et al., 2021; Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021; Weng et al., 2019). Finally, a comparison 26
between three cities within the case study allows for the examination of whether issues are related to the context of a specific city or occur over multiple implementations, which may point to a broader issue with the theory (Yin, 2009). The three city plans chosen for the case study are Paris En Commun (Hidalgo, 2020; Ville du Paris, 2020), Plan Melbourne 2050 (State of Victoria, 2017), and The Portland Plan (City of Portland, 2012b). These three plans provide a comprehensive overview of 15- and 20-Minute City plans in the Global North, covering major city regions on three continents (Europe, Australia, and North America). Each has a unique approach to the implementation of their respective concepts (in terms of regional scale, initiatives, participation, and measurement strategies), and is situated within a unique urban context (in
terms of population, physical characteristics, and position within the country). These three cities also benefit from being the furthest along in implementation and having a body of research already conducted with relation to the 15- or 20-Minute City and other urban issues that this analysis drew upon. The case study was conducted through the review of the three city plans and supporting documents (i.e., implementation strategies and related plans) as well as secondary sources, such as related literature, studies, and periodical articles. These sources were used to supplement the primary sources as detailed analysis through interviews or data collection was not possible within the scope of this thesis.
Through case study, a qualitative evaluation was performed using the set of questions developed through the theoretical framework (see Fig. 11). The questions allowed for a descriptive investigation and critical review of the policy language and initiatives within each plan as it relates to the issue of mobility justice and the three aspects of distributive, representative, and procedural justice. The case study will be presented as an overview of the three plans and their local contexts, followed by a cross case analysis to compare the plans, and concluded with a generalization of the findings.
Distributive Justice
Representative Justice
Procedural Justice
Overall Question
Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged?
Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community?
Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?
Sub-Questions
How does the plan distribute primary goods and capabilities?
What participatory process was used in the identification of primary goods and capabilities?
How are citizens included in the decision-making process?
What is done in the physical realm to support increased mobility for all users? How does the plan identify areas/populations that are lacking in mobility?
Are special or disadvantaged groups recognized and included in measures or analyses?
What groups are included in the process? At what stages are stakeholders included in the process?
What is done outside the physical realm to improve mobility?
Figure 11: Questions for operationalizing mobility justice for case study analysis 27
Paris En Commun Project Overview Paris En Commun is the city plan for Paris unveiled by Mayor Anne Hidalgo (2020) during her 2020 re-election campaign. The plan linked separate initiatives into a comprehensive policy framework that relies heavily on the 15-Minute City. Because Paris already has high residential density, the plan focuses on a broader mix of uses, transforming public space, and citizen participation. Schools form a central element, acting as ‘district capitals’ to create focal points within each neighbourhood for recreation, learning,
and culture (Ville du Paris, 2020) (see Fig. 12). School grounds will be open outside of regular hours to create more recreational space for local residents and will deliver cultural programs to students and adults. Since 2014, 41 school grounds have been transformed with the addition of planting and soft surfaces to offer cooling gardens for locals (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). In addition to schools, the city will be purchasing ground floor commercial units to rent to local businesses, doctors, cultural groups and neighbourhood associations
Figure 12: School grounds are transformed into hubs of community activity (Ville du Paris, 2020) 28
in order to fill gaps in underserviced areas (Hidalgo, 2020). Housing supply is also being targeted in response to increasing gentrification and affordability issues (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). The city has a goal of increasing public housing ownership to 30% by 2030 and wealthier neighbourhoods are specifically being targeted for new public housing. In addition, new taxes are being employed on vacant and second homes within the city in order to increase the supply of available units (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). Finally, the plan is focused on decentralization of the job market through remote working, colocation of workspaces, and relocating offices within neighbourhoods.
with over 2400 projects completed via participatory budgeting since 2014 (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). This is built on in the plan, which dedicates 5% of its budget to increase citizen decision making and co-planning. Citizen kiosks established across the city are a key part of this. The kiosks act as communication hubs for residents, allowing them to get information on city programs and local organizations, and to collect ideas for new participatory budget projects. Finally, while the plan covers the city as a whole, a street code for each district will be developed in collaboration with residents, allowing specific input on the needs and desires for that neighbourhood (Hidalgo, 2020).
A peaceful streets initiative promotes active transportation throughout the city. The streets directly outside schools have been converted into pedestrian-friendly areas, with new trees, benches, and limited access for vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Beyond the school, the city has dedicated 300 million Euros to install bike lanes, bike-friendly streets, and green routes across Paris (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). This will be combined with the removal of 60,000 parking spaces (approximately 10% of the private and public total) with the goal of changing long-term mobility habits. Major routes such as Rue de Rivoli and the banks of the Seine have been fully pedestrianized and a redesign of the Champs-Élysées will half the number of traffic lanes to make space for pedestrians, cyclists, and vegetation (Wilson, 2020). Citizen participation also plays a major role in Paris En Commun. The city already has a substantial participatory budgeting process,
Figure 13: Essential functions within Paris’ 15-Minute City (Ville du Paris, 2020) 29
Mobility Justice Analysis Distributive Paris En Commun recognizes the need for proximity to essential functions, using Moreno’s (2019) six categories (see Fig. 13). Co-locating some of the functions at schools, using the district capital model, means that these amenities will be evenly distributed across the city, enabling proximity for all residents. The city’s plan to purchase and rent commercial spaces also increases distributive justice as it provides for a need that has not been filled by a market-driven approach. The need for proximity to a particular service, such as a doctor’s office, is still present even where it may not be economical to provide one. Thus, the city stepping in and providing a space for these services decouples the citizen need from the economic potential of providing that need. The peaceful street initiative’s prioritizing of vulnerable road users also increases distributive justice as it ensures that everyone has access to a bike lane and green space and can use that infrastructure to navigate the city. This comes at the expense of parking space and vehicle lanes, but the focus on vulnerable users and active transportation represents a rebalancing in a city where two thirds of the public space is dedicated to cars but only 17% of the population travels by car (Ville du Paris, 2020). The plan does not have a specific framework for measuring the mobility and accessibility of neighbourhoods or groups. Paris is already a 15-Minute City in many respects, but there is acknowledgement from city officials that access is not balanced across neighbourhoods or population groups (O’Sullivan 30
& Bliss, 2020). The preparation of individual street codes for the 20 districts should give an opportunity to analyze and identify issues and barriers that need to be overcome to ensure a just distribution of the six essential functions and access to them. Representative The plan is based around providing for the six essential functions from Moreno’s (2019) theory, which, as discussed previously, could be considered a universal list of primary goods. However, the plan does not specifically address the indicators of each function and how they are implemented, which is key to ensuring that the functions are representative of specific resident needs. The strong mandate received by Hidalgo in the recent election (Reid, 2020), with this plan as a key part of her platform, does indicate that a majority of Parisians support the plan and can be taken as evidence that it is representative of their needs. In addition, the development of street codes and use of participatory budgeting can further reveal the needs and desires of individual neighbourhoods. Citizen kiosks will be crucial in this regard as the decentralized portals for citizens to engage with government and have their voice heard. Beyond the city limits, the plan has been criticized for the potential to increase the economic disparity between the centre and suburbs (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Paris En Commun only applies to the City of Paris, which is one of eight municipalities within the Île-de-France region. While the plan may be representative of the needs of central residents, it does not necessarily reflect the reality of the region as a whole. The removal of vehicle lanes and parking has been criti-
cized by suburban politicians as prioritizing the needs of the centre at the expense of the region’s needs (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Paris has a robust transit system that provides access between the centre and suburbs, but it could be beneficial to expand the plan to a regional level. Reconfiguring the suburbs with proximity as a goal would enable residents to travel more locally and reduce their reliance on the city centre. Within Paris, the plan recognizes the needs of low-income, poorly educated citizens and small business owners through programs targeting education, unemployment, and household self-sufficiency. There is also a recognition of the housing affordability issues with the increase to public housing supply and associated taxes that will allow people from a wider economic background to take advantage of the services and amenities of Paris.
Procedural Paris already has strong a participatory budgeting process and this new plan will increase the level of procedural justice. Neighbourhood kiosks allow citizens to directly engage with government and are essential for receiving and promoting ideas for participatory projects. Projects to transform schools into district capitals and the development of street codes are also bringing together city departments, businesses and community groups (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Together, these initiatives allow for citizens to be part of the entire decision-making process, through idea generation, design, and implementation.
Key Findings The existing built form can be transformed to increase diversity and encourage active transportation Initiatives need to apply to both the centre and the suburbs to decrease the risk of polarization Direct, neighbourhood level engagement and participatory budgeting allow for more resident control of the city 31
Plan Melbourne Project Overview
Living Locally 20 Minute Neighbourhood Pilot Prog
followed by metropolitan, major, and neighbourhood as the smallest. The role of NACs Plan Melbourne is the regional plan for is to provide daily services and amenities Melbourne and the 30 surrounding mu800m or a nicipalities, createdPlan by the State of Victoria. Melbourne 2017-2050within 20-minutes (measured as Stage 1 Existing neigh 10-minute walk in each direction). The overall One of the plan’s key ‘directions’ is creating Croydon South Planhealthy Melbourne 2017-2050 is a long-term plan mapping to activity centre does not specify “inclusive, vibrant and neighbouraccommodate Melbourne’s future growth. The plan is Led by Maroondah City Co locations for NACs, but they are typicalhoods” (State of Victoria, 96) through guided2017, by thep.principle of 20-minute neighbourhoods. Community Planning team ly located around village shopping areas, a neighbourhoo the use of the 20-minute neighbourhood developing The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living and liveability. commercial plazas and transit stations. In concept. Neighbourhoods are structured locally’—giving people the ability to meet most of their addition services daily needs within asafe 20-minute walk fromto home, with and amenities, around a set of ‘hallmarks’, including KeyNACs opportunities for Croyd access to safe cycling and localare public transport options. also targeted for housing intensification, connections for pedestrians and cyclists, streetscape improvements enhancing with minimum densities of 25 dwellings per connections to shows thatto 20 minutes is the maximum daily services and Research destinations, access time people are willing to walk to accessneeded daily needs exploring housing diversity hectare to support services and crepublic transit, high-quality public realm, and locally. This represents an 800m walk from home to a to these Strathmore sufficient population to support services destination, and back again. ate affordable housing in proximity services (State of Victoria, 2017). The network and transport. Similar to Moreno’s (2019) six Led by Moonee Valley City C onis delivering a high-quality of NACs and larger activity centres conessential functions,20-Minute each 20-minute neighNeighbourhood Pilot Program supporting council’s strateg nected via transit. This increases the potenbourhood provides for the needs of local In January 2018, the Minister for Planning launched the Key opportunities for Strath catchment around residents through 20-Minute 17 functions, as shown in Pilottial Neighbourhood Program to test the centres and creates a practical delivery of 20-minute broader neighbourhoods. improving pedestrian safet network of services and amenities Figure 14. providing bicycle lanes con The program is being deliveredacross in two the stages: region. support housing diversity.
1 Existing These 17 functions Stage are planned to Neighbourhoods be coSunshine West Stage 2 Greenfield Neighbourhoods To test the implementation of the 20-minute located at Neighbourhood Activity Centres Led by Brimbank City Coun city concept, three pilot projects were unprojects are delivered in partnership with the (NACs). The overallThe regional plan is being formed division, the project focused Victorian Planning Authority, local government, Victoria dertaken in suburban municipalities in 2018 around a framework of activity centres, with strategies to support a thriv Walks, Resilient Melbourne and the Heart Foundation. (State of Victoria, 2019d, 2019c, 2019a). The the central business district as the largest,
Key opportunities for Sunsh
encouraging ‘pop up’ shop exploring streetscape impr supporting public art insta Next steps
The Victorian Government turn the neighbourhood op
Each council is exploring st approach to other neighbo tools to support broader im
Figure 14: 17 features of Melbourne’s 20-Minute Neighbourhoods (State of Victoria, 2017) 32
State government recognized the disparity between the central and outer municipalities, observing that Melbourne contained two cities: a well-serviced but unaffordable centre, and affordable but poorly serviced suburbs (State of Victoria, 2017). Therefore, the pilot projects focused on transitioning suburban neighbourhoods to a more walkable urban form. The initiatives tested included smallscale interventions to improve non-car access (such as temporary traffic calming and pop-up parks) and events to break down barriers and encourage social interaction between residents and local businesses (see Fig. 15). All three pilot projects recognized the importance of more active transportation infrastructure to calm traffic and remove barriers to walking and cycling, as well as encouraging a sense of place within NACs through urban design and branding.
The pilot projects were also key sources of data capture and public consultation for the municipalities and state government. Each included analyses of the local demographics, movement patterns, healthy activities, place types, vegetation, and development patterns. Community partnerships were also formed with businesses, community groups, and local residents. Finally, extensive public engagement was undertaken through community events, workshops, online platforms, and street interviews. The three pilot projects provided governments with essential data to develop methods and best practices for implementing 20-minute neighbourhoods across the Melbourne region.
Figure 15: A community event in Strathmore promotes local businesses and community engagement (State of Victoria, 2019c)
Strathmore Street Party
A local youth group, called ‘Let’s Make A Park,’ created a pop-up park outside Strathmore train station. It was launched with a street party
33was positiv Feedback regarding major projects and will be incorporated into subsequent stage of project delivery. The consultation process wa
Mobility Justice Analysis Distributive The Neighbourhood Activity Centre concept and concentration of services improves distributive justice by making it easier to access multiple primary goods at once and reducing the overall number of trips needed. However, not all areas within Melbourne are in proximity to an NAC and not all existing NACs have access to a rapid or frequent transit service (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). The plan and pilot programs do address the immediate area by recommending active transportation investments to reduce the barriers to walking and increase cycling infrastructure, but, without broader connections, the NACs could end up as islands of walkability. The plan also does not address the distribution of employment within the city. Instead, it relies on improving vehicle and transit access to the central business district and employment clusters to reduce travel times. To compare service levels across the region, the state is planning to develop a neighbourhood index that would measure activity centres, schools, public transport, housing density and diversity, walkability and tree cover (State of Victoria, 2019b). This would be used in detailed plan development and monitoring and could be an effective tool in ensuring the least advantaged areas are receiving appropriate resources. Further to this point, the recognition of the difference between centre and suburbs and the use of pilot programs are a good step towards addressing the disparity. However, all three pilot programs took place in ‘middle suburbs’, which are typically denser and more walkable than the newer outer suburbs (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 34
2021). To this end, the plan is not targeting the areas that are in greatest need first, due to the car-centric form and higher concentrations of poverty and immigrants (Whitzman et al., 2013), which falls short of the goal of distributive justice. Representative The 20-Minute City portion of Plan Melbourne was well received during the plan’s development (Hansen, 2020). The results of surveys done as part of the pilot projects (State of Victoria, 2019a, 2019c, 2019d) and by Whitzman et al. (2013) also reflected the NAC functions, with residents wanting greater access to employment, arts and culture, transit, education, and affordable housing. The pilot projects achieved a high level of citizen engagement in their respective neighbourhoods by using a variety of methods to target different groups and by focusing on community partnerships. The plan and pilot projects also included a broad range of social initiatives that complement the physical improvements, such as: events and awareness campaigns targeting local businesses at the NACs and programs to remove barriers for non-profit community service providers (State of Victoria, 2019b). Though the plan takes into consideration that life in the suburbs is difficult without a car, there is still a concern that the needs of outer suburban residents are not taken into account during the plan’s implementation (Whitzman et al., 2013). Funding for infrastructure is focused on road investments, such as a city centre highway tunnel, and policies to protect certain neighbourhoods from densification still exist. These initiatives ignore the local needs of suburban residents
or those without cars and instead focus on facilitating longer trips to more distant destinations. Procedural The substantial community partnerships in the three pilot programs led to many of the initiatives being designed and implemented by local groups, including businesses, a community walking group, residents within 800m, park groups, a neighbourhood watch, and a rotary club. However, one survey in Croydon South found that “residents felt they had little influence on decision making” (State of Victoria, 2019a, p. 9) with only 55% feeling that were able to make a difference in the community. This may be related to
several factors. Individuals not part of a community group that was engaged in a pilot project may feel left out, while the selection of groups may be biased towards those that already hold power and influence within the community. It may also be connected to a broader disconnect between state level policy and local municipalities (Whitzman et al., 2013). The state may have good intentions in the development of policy, but the local council may lack the resources and political will to implement the policy or include the public in decision making. Because of this, it is important to include policies and resources that allow for a greater level of public control over future projects.
Key Findings Colocation of services and amenities at community hubs improves access and reduces needed trips, but it is important to ensure that everyone has access to a nearby hub Social events are a complementary tool in addition to infrastructure and policy and are essential to remove the psychological barriers to active transportation Community engagement in various forms is required to identify needs, but must be more than just data collection 35
The Portland Plan Project Overview
In creating the plan, the city undertook a detailed analysis of each neighbourhood to determine the level of completeness and walkability (see Fig. 16) (City of Portland, 2012a). The analysis used a list of factors including destinations (distance to full-service grocery stores, neighbourhood serving retail, eating and drinking establishments, parks, and elementary schools) and design (street intersections, sidewalks, frequent transit stops, slopes) and scored the results based on distances and factor concentration. By combining the factor scores for each neighbourhood, the city has determined that
m
Riv
H WY U FO
er
18TH MILL
PL A
Vancouver
IN
ST
1ST
BLVD
as
nd
Bybee
28TH ST ST
am
nI sla
AIN PL
H RT
53RD S T
c La
Ha yd e
0
162ND
lu
a
Sauvie Island
Burlington
50
138 T H AV
Co
1
FRUIT VALLE
0 -5 SR
20-minute neighborhood concept analysis
bi
50 0
HWY
Orchards
ANDRESEN
Y RD
el
RE
n an
ED
5
Ch
I-20
h
ER R
D
Mu l t n o m a
The City of Portland’s (2012b) municipal plan envisions a “healthy connected city” (p. 73) made up of complete 20-minute neighbourhoods. Based on the complete neighbourhood theory previously explored, the plan seeks to meet residents’ needs through access to daily goods and services, housing variety, and recreational opportunities, at a walkable and bikeable scale. A 20-minute timeframe is used to define an ideal limit of that scale, and the plan uses the terms complete neighbourhood and 20-minute neighbourhood interchangeably.
Lake
rk
9 9W
CESAR E. CHAVEZ
I-405
12TH
102ND
Gresham
112TH
Mt
I-5 99 -
W
Lake D
4
best accessibility
SUNNY
Mt Talbert
SID E
L IN
R
RD
room for improvement limited access city boundary parks
industrial zone data sources: City of Portland, Planning & Sustainability; equal weighted inputs. Version 6. Detailed documentation available. G:\mayor_office\20min_nbo\Spatial_polys\version6_rasters\20min_analysis_22x34_v6.mxd
VD BL
BO
IE
S NE
GH
The information on the map was derived from digital data-bases on the City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability GIS. Care was taken in thecreation of this map LD but it is provided "as R is". The City of Portland cannot accept any responsibility for error, omissions, or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties which accompany this product. However, FE notification of any errors will be appreciated.
O
moderate accessibility
Valley
City of Portland | Bureau of Planning & Sustainability | Geographic Information System TF OA
YR
22
CLACKAMAS CO.
Happy
242ND
Milwaukie HW Y
Oswego
RD
MULTNOMAH CO.
222ND DR
KING
Scott
172ND AV
B
RD
R BU AR
190TH DR
I-205
RD
FOSTER
RD
MURRAY
STARK ST
ST
DIVISION
Figure 16: The 20-minute neighbourhood analysis maps accessibility to local services and amenities (City of Portland, 2012a) 36
Troutdale
Wood Village
O LF TE
BLVD
I-5
AV
Fairview ST
R
N
Mc L O U
3
DR
ST
9E
E AV
2
E
ST
D
O ES
October 1, 2010 Miles
1
MA R I N
D
BLVD
M
N
HALSEY
VD BL
BLVD
Bull Mtn 0
EL L
Tigard
FE R R Y
BLV I-84
GLISAN
BURNSIDE
DA CA MA
LL L O
RD
SAN DY
9
170TH
Y
HA
Y ND
Y HW
217
T
nd
HW
HILLSDALE
Y
IN G
Maywood Park
122ND
M. L. KING
HWY
30
POW
RD
HW
M FAR
Beaverton
ST
VD BL
Portland
S R NE
BEAVERTON RD
ent Is la
82ND
US
C
Gover nm
223RD
a
HWY
PRESCOTT
SA
RD
N AN Y O
Camas WA Y
ST
VAUGHN
CORNELL
WY
148TH
P
Airport
RD
20TH ST 34TH ST
OR T
ST
RD
BA
AI RP
Portland International
RD
CLA RK H
182ND
e
st
D
BA
UN ION
IS &
164TH
ett
re
BLV LO M
Ri ve r
ON
LEW
I-5
RD
o
TON OR E G O N
Lake
IA
ke
WASHING
Smith
LU MB
La
F
la m Wil
CO
approximately 45% of residents currently live within a complete neighbourhood (City of Portland, 2012b). The plan’s goal is to increase that number to 80% by 2030. To accomplish this, the plan uses a combination of Vibrant Neighbourhood Anchors (VNAs) and Neighbourhood Greenways to concentrate services and improve active transportation mobility. VNAs form the centre of the Portland’s complete neighbourhoods, similar to the activity centre framework in Plan Melbourne. VNAs are envisioned as hubs that provide safe, convenient access to daily goods and services. The concentration of services encourages trips to be made via active transportation and aligns with the city’s goal of decreased car usage.
Connecting the VNAs is a network of Neighbourhood Greenways (see Fig. 17), a combination of streets and trails with an active transportation focus. The streets utilize traffic-control measures such as speed bumps, bike sharrows, protected crossings, and diversion islands to slow vehicle traffic and improve access for walking, cycling, and those with mobility impairment. Portland currently has the highest percentage of cycle commuting in the United States (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020), and hopes to improve this with the Greenways, which offer an alternative network to busy city streets that is more conducive to active transportation.
Figure 17: Neighbourhood greenways provide safe routes for active transportation trips (Andersen, 2015) 37
Mobility Justice Analysis Distributive The Portland Plan addresses distributive justice through the use of complete neighbourhoods, a widely used definition covering the provision of goods and services that respond to the daily needs of residents. By focusing service delivery within neighbourhood on VNAs, the plan improves access and reduces the need for multiple trips to different destinations. This is addressed by the Neighbourhood Analysis that finds more value in the concentration of destinations than in a more even distribution across the city (City of Portland, 2012a). The analysis also provides a useful tool to identify specific deficiencies within neighbourhoods, to target investments towards the least advantaged, and to track the effectiveness of initiatives. The plan recognizes the challenge of providing complete communities in outer neighbourhoods due to a variety of factors, such as a lack of sidewalks, poor street connectivity, and low population density near services. Some of these problems can be overcome through infrastructure or by using cycling to increase the access radius in low density areas. However, Portland’s projected future growth will not be sufficient to achieve the minimum supporting density for 20-minute neighbourhoods across the city (City of Portland, 2012a). Thus, the city must rely on other methods to enable mobility beyond adding density (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). The Neighbourhood Greenways initiative addresses this by creating routes conducive to active transportation that can connect with existing VNAs and other destinations. However, there is some concern that Greenways are not provided to all parts 38
of the city, particularly in lower-income areas (Mahmoudi et al., 2020). Ensuring that all have access to a nearby Greenway will be essential in providing a minimum standard of mobility for all. Representative The plan was developed through an extensive public consultation effort, with input from public, private, and non-profit stakeholders (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). There is recognition throughout the plan and analysis of large-scale socioeconomic issues facing the city’s residents. Similar to Melbourne, Portland’s affordable outer areas suffer from a lack of access to transit and services and are experiencing an increase in racial diversity and poverty (City of Portland, 2012a). This is coupled with increasing displacement of renters in well-serviced inner neighbourhoods, a high percentage of which are people of colour and/or low-income. To address this, the plan includes an equity framework, designed to expand the city’s ability to identify disparity, include more diverse voices, and evaluate initiatives and their relation to equity and justice (City of Portland, 2012b). The Neighbourhood Analysis also recognizes the variety of needs and aspirations within the city (City of Portland, 2012a). It addresses the fact that the same basic measures are applied across the whole city and are not reflective of the needs and culture of individual neighbourhoods. It recommends additional detailed study to complement the general analysis completed to support the plan. There is also a recognition that some areas in the city may not be appropriate for a 20-minute neighbourhood. This is spe-
cifically mentioned in the situation where increasing density would have environmental consequences. The plan does not offer an alternative strategy for neighbourhood completeness when the 20-minute initiative is inappropriate. It will be important to ensure that the areas that might be exempt from the 20-minute neighbourhood are not also the areas that are lacking in mobility or home to the least advantaged residents. Overall, the plan marks a shift away from the assumption that everyone from Portland wants to travel to the city centre to access benefits (Mahmoudi et al., 2020). By decentralizing the city through VNAs and Greenways, the desires of outer residents to live locally is acknowledged and supported. Procedural The equity framework encourages the inclusion of marginal groups and those not represented within existing decision-making processes (City of Portland, 2012b). This is
accomplished by expanding engagement beyond traditional neighbourhood associations. While the entirety of the city is included in a neighbourhood association, these bodies do not always represent the variety of socioeconomic and cultural situations within the area (Leistner, 2008). Additionally, the city recognizes that some group affiliations are not determined by geographic borders but by other factors such as culture or common interest, and is working to include these groups in decision making processes. Portland is known for its high level of community engagement and participatory democracy (Leistner, 2008), but the Portland Plan has been criticized for a lack of bottom-up processes for improving quality of life (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). Instead, the plan and analysis are seen as a top-down approach and may result in a positivistic view of the city’s needs. Ensuring that the analysis is not taken as the definitive source for decision-making will be essential in ensuring the plan is implemented in a just way.
Key Findings Greenways that bypass busy traffic corridors can promote active transportation without major infrastructural change, provided that they connect to local destinations and reach to all corners of the city A 20-minute neighbourhood may not be appropriate or possible everywhere, and alternative methods of ensuring mobility justice need to be explored A data-driven approach provides a framework for overall measurement, comparison and prioritization, but requires local input to respond justly to the needs of residents 39
Comparative Analysis Distributive All three plans focus primarily on distributive justice and use comparable sets of essential functions to set a minimum standard of daily needs (see Fig. 18). The plans also use a hub to focus various activities at: schools for Paris, and commercial centres for Melbourne and Portland. This concentration of activity is cited by the Portland Plan (2012b) as being more beneficial for residents versus an even distribution of facilities. However, this still depends on an even distribution of hubs to provide basic access for all, something which Melbourne specifically has been criticized for neglecting (Whitzman et al., 2013). In terms of specific facilities, Paris is the only plan that focuses on decentralizing workplaces and decoupling services from a market-based approach. All three plans also focus efforts on reconfiguring the built environment to better support active transportation and shift trips away from the car. The peaceful streets initiative in Paris represents the greatest departure from car-centric city design and also includes Paris
Melboune
Learn Work Share and reuse Stock up Fresh air Cultivate and engage Heal Circulate Shop Eat well
Local shopping centres Local health facilities and service Local schools Lifelong learning opportunities Local playgrounds and parks Green street and spaces Community gardens Sport and recreation facilities Safe streets and spaces
major routes, which Portland’s Greenways do not. However, Paris is also an older, smaller, and denser city which may make it more conducive to active transportation trips in general. Melbourne is the least developed in this regard, focusing on transit trips to activity centres and the central business district, but the pilot programs all include recommendations for new active transportation infrastructure. There is a recognition from all three cities that mobility and daily services are unevenly distributed, either between neighbourhoods or between centre and suburbs, which forms the impetus for the inclusion of 15- and 20-minute initiatives, however the identification and scale of the unevenness differs significantly. Portland utilizes an extensive analysis framework to determine specific areas and types of need but, along with Paris, this is only applicable to the central municipality (though the City of Portland covers a larger and more spatially diverse share of its region than Paris). Melbourne’s plan is the only one that covers the entire urban region, Portland Affordable housing options Ability to age in place Housing diverity Walkability Safe cycling networks Local public transport Well connected to public transport, jobs, and services within the region Local employment opportunities
Figure 18: Comparison of functions within 15- and 20-Minute Neighbourhoods 40
Full-service grocery stores Neighbourhood-serving retail Eating and drinking establishments Parks Elementary schools
but does not yet contain a mechanism to measure the disparity between neighbourhoods. In all three cases, there lacks a connection between the distributive needs of individual neighbourhoods and the desire to provide improved quality of life for all.
seeks to create a city that is welcoming for all cultures and has specific municipal programs to increase self-sufficiency for low-income and poorly educated residents. The peaceful streets initiative also puts a special emphasis on schools and the safety of children.
Representative
The three plans include social initiatives to complement changes to the built form and address socioeconomic disparity. Melbourne’s pilot projects were centred around events and community engagement while Paris’ plan uses education programs, housing investment, and citizen kiosks to address specific needs within communities. Portland focuses on neighbourhood-level business to improve access, relying on infrastructure to encourage active transportation trips.
Research from secondary sources indicated that the three plans were developed through public consultation and received widespread support. This could reflect a broader desire for 15-Minute style living among residents and that the plans are representative of local needs. The plans also include similar sets of essential functions, which lends further evidence to the 15-Minute City’s six functions as a universal list of primary goods. Further, there is a recognition from each city that the general list needs to be refined for local implementation, through the use of street codes (Paris), more detailed analysis (Portland), and pilot projects (Melbourne). Disadvantaged and marginal groups are recognized in each of the plans. All include provisions to increase active transportation infrastructure, citing non-car users as a group that has been disadvantaged by infrastructure design. Portland’s inclusion of an equity framework within the Portland Plan creates an explicit method for ensuring that initiatives are representative of residents. The framework specifically targets disparity reduction and improving equity as key factors for the development and prioritization of initiatives. Melbourne also has a broad vision for the inclusion of all in city life, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or ability. Two of the pilot projects targeted older residents and youth with specific initiatives. Paris similarly
It is also worth noting that Portland alone recognized the limits of its 20-minute neighbourhood approach, specifically where development or densification could pose an environmental risk. None of the plans provide a solution for providing access to daily needs where the 15- or 20-Minute City concepts may be inappropriate.
Procedural All three plans recognized the need for local input and decision making as part of the implementation of the 15- or 20-Minute City. For Paris and Melbourne, engagement was more direct through citizen kiosks, participatory budgeting, and pilot program consultations. Melbourne also relied heavily on community partnerships in its pilot programs. Portland’s system differs in that it uses the existing government structure of advisory committees and neighbourhood associations. The three different approaches result 41
Summary in differing amounts of potential citizen power, with Paris’ participatory budgeting giving the greatest amount of local control over decision making. In terms of inclusion, Paris and Portland both make an explicit effort to include marginal and underrepresented groups in the process. Portland is specifically seeking to include minority groups (including differently abled) on city advisory boards and has formed additional committees of non-geographic groups (such as culture or shared interest) to supplement its neighbourhood-level groups. In contrast, Melbourne focused on partnerships with community organizations within the pilot projects, which may put an emphasis on those who are already holding local positions of power. The three plans also made efforts to include citizens in all stages of the process. Paris and Melbourne both included idea generation and implementation in their participatory budgeting and pilot projects, respectively, while Portland focused more on transparency through engagement and less on bottom-up processes for implementation.
42
The 15-Minute City concept and the related city plans of Paris, Melbourne, and Portland focus primarily on addressing distributive justice. This is accomplished through reconfiguring the built environment and trying to correct the unevenness between neighbourhoods and between centre and suburb. This is a good first step, but proximity-based measures may not address users’ ability to convert the proximate resource into an improvement to quality of life. Social initiatives that complement infrastructure can help address these barriers. The three plans reviewed employed different methods of engagement, but all recognized and received broad community support for their 15- or 20-Minute City initiatives. Increased decision-making power through a society-centric approach will be necessary in the creation of fine-grained plans for local implementation to ensure that whatever is created accomplishes the goals of increased mobility and quality of life. Finally, the plans and the overarching concept need a mechanism that prioritizes those with the greatest need first. Decoupling the provision of daily services from economic potential or the utilitarian goal of greatest overall good will ensure that past patterns of injustice can be corrected and all urban residents can enjoy an equitable standard of living.
Distributive Justice Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged? Key Findings The existing built form can be transformed to increase diversity and encourage active transportation Colocation of services and amenities at community hubs improves access and reduces needed trips, but it is important to ensure that everyone has access to a nearby hub Greenways that bypass busy traffic corridors can promote active transportation without major infrastructural change, provided that they connect to local destinations and reach to all corners of the city
Representative Justice Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community? Key Findings Initiatives need to apply to both the centre and the suburbs to decrease the risk of polarization Social events are a complementary tool in addition to infrastructure and policy and are essential to remove the psychological barriers to active transportation A 20-minute neighbourhood may not be appropriate or possible everywhere, and alternative methods of ensuring mobility justice need to be explored
Procedural Justice Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs? Key Findings Direct, neighbourhood-level engagement and participatory budgeting allow for more resident control of the city Community engagement in various forms is required to identify needs, but must be more than just data collection A data-driven approach provides a framework for overall measurement, comparison and prioritization, but requires local input to respond justly to the needs of residents
43
5 DISCUSSION
Mobility and accessibility through transportation are at the centre of a broader discussion about the future of cities (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Past theories have increasingly focused on human-centred planning and the importance of active transportation, upon which the 15-Minute City builds. However, the question remains of how the 15-Minute City and mobility justice relate. This analysis explored that relationship through three aspects of justice: distributive, representative, and procedural. Following a review and discussion of the findings, the lens will be widened to the tensions present between the scales of mobility justice as well as the 15-Minute City’s relationship to the suburban context.
44
Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged? Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community? Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?
Mobility Justice Findings Distributive The first question in the analysis asked: ‘Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged?’ All three plans and the overall theory lay out a set of basic functions in line with Rawls’ definition of primary goods (Pereira et al., 2017) and define a minimum capability through walking and cycling proximity (Sen, 1979). Accomplishing the provision of basic functions also generally takes place within the existing built form context. There is some focus on densification, particularly in Melbourne, but the plans lean most heavily on reconfiguring streets and adding or shifting services to fill gaps. This has the potential for an easier and faster implementation because it is typically under the municipal government’s control. In contrast, a development centred approach (Dunham-Jones & Williamson, 2009; Tachieva, 2010), relies more heavily on private investment. While this has the potential for more substantial change on a specific site, particularly in areas where low density or built form are barriers to the 15-Minute City, for Portland a densification-only approach was not feasible based on long-term growth projections. These strategies all provide daily needs at a minimum level, but only offer a transportation justice solution (reducing externalities) (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020) and do not enter the realm of mobility justice (addressing underlying power structures) (Sheller, 2018). The second part of the analysis question – providing for the least advantaged – is less clear in a distributive justice sense. Focusing on active transportation does represent a disadvantaged group in terms of the previous priority and investment into automobile
travel (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). The plans and theory also recognize the uneven distribution of resources and capabilities that is present in cities, with Paris and Portland implementing policies to reduce gentrification and displacement. However, the specific implementation of the plans will be an important factor in determining how effective they are at providing for needs. For example, the use of nodes such as Neighbourhood Activity Centres is only effective if the nodes are distributed evenly across the city and are sufficiently connected to the surrounding neighbourhood. Without these points, the existing patterns of amenity deserts and islands of walkability currently seen with transit-oriented development will not be corrected.
Representative In terms of representative justice, the analysis asked, ‘Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community?’ All three city plans showed broad public support and line up with the idea of a universal capability measure (Pereira et al., 2017). The three cities also recognize that additional consultation is needed for developing more detailed local plans. Further, the three plans include social and policy initiatives that address the non-physical barriers to mobility, such as Portland’s equity framework and Portland’s self-sufficiency programs for low-income households. These represent a recognition of the social- and knowledge-based factors that influence mobility, including culture, gender, age, and ability (Sen, 1979). However, this is not included in Moreno’s (2019) overall theory. Given that the goal of the 15-Minute City is to enable the fulfilling of daily needs 45
and to encourage a shift toward active transportation, ensuring that people actually want to and are able to take part in that behaviour is essential.
Procedural The final analysis question dealt with procedural justice, asking: ‘Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?’ This was the most difficult to answer of the three as public engagement (with the exception of Melbourne’s pilot projects) was not specifically contained within the 15- or 20-Minute City framework. However, all three cities do include a form of engagement or public decision making. Paris and Melbourne are more direct, through participatory budgeting and pilot project partnerships respectively, while Portland’s exists within the government structure in the form of advisory groups and committees. All three represent a hybrid of state- and society-centric approaches (Karner et al., 2020), with Paris having the most society-focused through participatory budgeting. While there are methods for citizens to influence decision-making, the 15- or 20-Minute City policies do not specifically address the historic injustice and lack of power held by marginal groups that mobility justice is seeking to correct. These policies are more of a reflection of the governance structure and values of the city or region than of the 15-Minute City.
46
Each of the three plans reviewed, as well as the 15-Minute City concept, focuses most heavily on distributive justice. The focus on distributive justice may be related to a deficiency within the overall concept and planning more generally. Reallocating resources and reconfiguring urban areas are important issues for planning and relate to the ideas within transport justice, but without representative and procedural justice, may fail to address the underlying power structures (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). In all cases, the development of measures and strategies would be beneficial, as would collecting long-term data to ensure that the policies and initiatives are improving the mobility for the least advantaged and not exacerbating existing conditions.
Scales of Justice The case studies highlighted the need for any mobility-based initiative to work on multiple scales. Sheller (2018) stresses that mobility justice occurs at multiple scales and three of the scales relate directly to the 15-Minute City: the bodily, built environment, and extended urban scales. The bodily scale is similar to the Capability Approaches (Pereira et al., 2017; Sen, 1979) in that individuals have different capacities to move through space. A combination of factors, such as class, gender, race, sexuality, and physical ability, all combine to determine the ease or difficulty of this movement, and are collectively known as network capital. The built environment scale relates to infrastructure and land use decisions that shape the physical structure of the city. This is the most in line with 15-Minute City principles and Sheller (2018)
Built Environment Centre vs Suburb
Local vs City-Wide
Bodily
Individual vs Infrastructure
Scales & Tensions
Extended Urban Figure 19: The scales of the 15-Minute City are sources of tension and potential conflict
calls for equal investment for all modes and a minimum level of accessibility for all users. The extended urban scale deals with the spatial segregation of cities based on levels of mobility. Urban elites are able to accumulate more network capital, allowing for greater access to the city, both in terms of movement and settlement. Using the term ‘spatial secession’, Sheller (2018) describes the practice of affluent residents migrating into more desirable spaces or neighbourhoods to the exclusion of the less advantaged. These three scales and the actors within them are a source of tension with urban spaces. In relation to the 15-Minute City, these tensions are manifested in three ways: individuals vs infrastructure, centre vs suburbs, and local vs city-wide decision making (see Fig. 19).
Individual vs Infrastructure The 15-Minute City relies on the transformation of the built environment to enable increased mobility. Providing daily needs within a short walk or cycle trip, combined with more infrastructure for active transportation, will no doubt have a positive impact on the mobility of many users. But simply providing a new Neighbourhood Activity Centre in a suburb of Melbourne is not enough if access is deterred by large parking lots or fast-moving traffic (Whitzman et al., 2013). This lack of network capital is being addressed in Toronto through Scarborough Cycles (2021), a network of community bike hubs in the eastern suburbs. Each hub uses programs and events to promote cycling culture and address the specific barriers to suburban cycling. The programs target physical (i.e. lack of infrastructure, poor transit, not owning a car), knowledge-based 47
(i.e. inability to ride a bike, uncomfortable on roads, lack of drivers licence), and social (i.e. a lack of other local riders, fear of theft, or the perceived need for a high fitness level) factors that may reduce the mobility within the neighbourhood (see Fig. 20). Groups with low cycling rates but high cycling potential are targeted, with a special emphasis on age, socioeconomic status, and length of time in Canada. This strategy improves mobility for these less advantaged groups and addresses barriers to active transportation that are not solved through infrastructure alone. Taking a comprehensive, capability-based approach to mobility is an effective way of ensuring that the needs of all are met through the implementation of the 15-Minute City.
Centre vs Suburb Each of the plans studied recognized the disparity between centre and suburbs in terms of service provision and affordability. This disparity also applies to the ability of residents to move through and relocate within the city. Paris recognizes that 17% of trips by residents are made by car and is reconfiguring its streets to match (Hidalgo, 2020), but it is also important to consider the needs of residents from beyond the city limits who need access to the centre. There is concern that an unevenly applied 15-Minute City will create a form of gated community where the elite can retreat to and move freely within and those without the necessary network capital are excluded (O’Sullivan,
Figure 20: A bike maintenance workshop offers essential skills for suburban riders (Scarborough Cycles, 2021) 48
2021b; Rudlin, 2020). This spatial secession would exacerbate the current socioeconomic disparity within cities. To prevent the displacement of disadvantaged populations from central or improving neighbourhoods, cities around the world are creating affordable housing through Community Land Trusts (CLTs) (Choi et al., 2018; Way et al., 2021). CLTs are non-profit organizations that purchase land in gentrifying communities and provide affordable housing for low-income families. By decoupling the housing price from the market, CLTs are able to prevent the speculation and displacement that can accompany community investments. Residents are also typically incorporated into
the governance model, allowing for more direct control and encouraging the creation of community benefits. Most of the 240 CLTs in the United States are non-profit organizations, while some have been created by local municipalities as independent institutions. By ensuring affordable housing in the most attractive and well-serviced neighbourhoods, CLTs can aid in the 15-Minute City’s goal of providing mobility for all.
Local vs City-Wide The final source of tension deals with knowledge and decision-making ability. The need to implement the 15-Minute City in a widespread fashion leads to its adoption at the city or regional level. This allows for the
Figure 21: Modular furniture allows residents to transform parking spaces into community resources (LundbergDesign, 2020) 49
coordination of initiatives and more potential to provide a minimum quality of life for all residents. However, the actual implementation of the 15-Minute City is at a very small scale, dealing with the needs of individuals and neighbourhood-level built form. The disparity between the two is similar to Jacobs’ (1961) description of neighbourhoods and the need for a mediating level between the governance of the city and the realities of the street. Without detailed knowledge of local needs and abilities, the 15-Minute City may create solutions that do not actually address mobility justice issues. One method of addressing this is being tested in Sweden. The Street Moves project is using modular street furniture to transform streets across the country (Dickson, 2021; O’Sullivan, 2021a). Residents within the current pilot project areas are able to choose
from a list of modules that are designed to fit into a typical parking space (see Fig. 21). The pieces are standardized and fit together into an array of options, allowing the street space to be reconfigured based on the desires of residents. The key for the project leaders is to give residents direct control over the space outside their door. The project also starts a conversation between residents and municipalities about the future of streets in Sweden. Residents are made aware of the possibilities and are empowered to create change, while cities are given essential knowledge that reflects the current needs, instead of relying on past practices for solutions. Nicknamed the ‘One-Minute City’, the project creates a link between local and city-wide issues, and could be an effective way for the 15-Minute City to bridge the gap between local issues and city-wide oversight.
Tensions and Solutions Individual vs Infrastructure
50
Ensure access is not deterred by a lack of network capital
Centre vs Suburb
Recognize the mobility needs of residents in all parts of an urban region
Local vs City-Wide
Coordinate initiatives and decisionmaking between the regional and local level
Suburban Context Another common factor between the three case study plans is the difficulty in achieving the 15-Minute City in suburban contexts. These areas are a challenge because of the low-density built form and car-centric infrastructure, driven by the past assumption that all travel would be accomplished through private automobiles (Ledsham & Verlinden, 2019). Some suburbs are also the victims of past injustice in the form of highway construction, exclusionary zoning policies, or lack of investment (Archer, 2020; Novakovic, 2019). Combating this through the 15-Minute City represents a significant departure from past approaches, both physically and politically (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). The nature of the change and overall diffi-
culty in implementation points to the underlying structural forces that stand in the way. Changing these structures is a key to mobility justice and any plan to improve a suburban neighbourhood in this way needs to address it. However, this requires a level of sustained political will that may be difficult to muster, particularly in areas where disadvantaged voices are marginalized (Way et al., 2021). By focusing on short term, small scale improvements, such as those proposed by Street Moves (Dickson, 2021; O’Sullivan, 2021a) or Scarborough Cycles (2021), neighbourhoods can build momentum and support for larger-scale change. They can also help highlight the diverse realities of the suburbs, counter to the perception that they exist as a homogenous, car-loving monolith (see Fig. 22). This narrative is not unique to car-centric
Figure 22: A group ride through car-centric infrastructure highlights the hostile environment for active transportation and brings awareness to the needs of non-car users (Scarborough Cycles, 2021) 51
cities or suburbs, but is taking place even in cycling-friendly cities such as Copenhagen (Henderson & Gulsrud, 2019). Fights over the allocation of road space and the necessity of car-ownership make it difficult to gain political support, despite the widespread walking and cycling culture within the city. However, it is also important to remember that, “Building a bicycle city, just as deciding to build a car city, is a political decision” (Henderson & Gulsrud, 2019, p. 189). The direction a city chooses to develop, whether instituting change or maintaining the status quo, is still a choice that needs to be made. Without a high level of commitment, the 15-Minute City may fail to achieve its goal of improving quality of life for all. This potential failure raises the question that, if the concept can not help those who need it the most, how useful is it as a tool for city building? The concept could be revised to bring it inline with mobility justice goals, as outlined
The fact that providing basic quality of life for urban residents is difficult means that some kind of change is necessary previously, with additional principles designed to prioritize local needs and the least advantaged groups. Or it could be discarded, either in suburban areas or altogether. The Portland Plan’s (City of Portland, 2012) recognition that 20-minute neighbourhoods could run contrary to environmental goals is evidence of this on a small scale.
52
However, the fact that providing basic quality of life for urban residents through proximity is difficult to achieve means that some kind of change is necessary. Based on the previous analysis, the 15-Minute City concept does represent a universal measure of quality of life and basic access. As well, there is general agreement among planning theorists that walkable neighbourhoods are beneficial (Kelbaugh, 2007). This is also reflected in the overall support shown for the three reviewed city plans in the case study and in the latent demand for walkability in cities (Brookfield, 2017; Toronto Public Health, 2012), suggesting that it is not simply the desires of those within professional or academic circles. All of this leads to the conclusion that, if implemented justly and supported by public and political will, the 15-Minute City could have a significant positive impact on the quality of life of urban residents.
Limitations & Further Research While the basic idea of the 15-Minute City is simple, in practice it is integrated into a broader set of policies and practices targeting equity, sustainability, health, and the economy. Thus, it is difficult to isolate and evaluate the 15-Minute City’s specific ideas and effects, as these will be influenced by the governance and detailed design that is undertaken. In addition, this analysis was limited by the public availability of information and the time available for document review. Going forward, the 15-Minute City and its implementing city plans would benefit from a longitudinal analysis to determine its effectiveness at improving access to daily needs and mobility justice. More information will also be available as the concept gains more popularity and best practices are developed and refined. Paris, Portland, and Melbourne are early adopters of time- and proximity-based planning, and a broader picture of the 15-Minute City’s effectiveness will develop as more cities move to address mobility justice.
53
6 CONCLUSION
This thesis explored the relationship between the 15-Minute City and mobility justice. Cities around the world are adopting the 15-Minute City as a planning tool (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020) and it is important to consider what effect the implementation of the concept will have on the mobility of residents, particularly those that are less advantaged. Based on a qualitative analysis of the concept and three city plans, the 15-Minute City has the potential to improve mobility justice. The underlying theory focuses most heavily on distributive justice by guaranteeing a minimum level of access to daily needs, however its implementation in Paris, Melbourne, and Portland showed aspects of representative and procedural justice as well.
54
By looking specifically at the three aspects of justice, mobility justice within the 15-Minute City can be improved. For distributive justice, the provision of daily needs can be supplemented by prioritizing the least-advantaged areas and populations first (Pereira et al., 2017). This will help to reduce the disparity between different levels of network capital (Sheller, 2018). For representative justice, the concept’s broad public support can be enhanced by a recognition of individual capability (Pereira et al., 2017; Sen, 1979). Ensuring the infrastructure and social initiatives are targeted to people’s needs will help to overcome the barriers to mobility. Finally, for procedural justice, including society in the decision-making process will ensure that past structures of injustice are recognized and corrected (Karner et al., 2020). This is included in related city policies, but not necessarily in the 15-Minute City’s theory.
The three-part approach to mobility justice expands the 15-Minute City beyond the distributional aspect alone. It also offers a novel approach to its critique. The issues of social justice and gentrification have been raised regarding the 15-Minute City (O’Sullivan, 2021), but previous research has focused primarily on issues of environmental sustainability and public health (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020; Moreno et al., 2021; Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021; Weng et al., 2019). The operationalization of
Mobility justice will be an important step to ensuring that the 15-Minute City improves mobility for all mobility justice through the set of questions developed in this research offers a framework for analysing the concept and future implementations of its principles. Bringing the needs of residents into close proximity through the 15-Minute City would represent an important step towards increasing mobility and justice. As the concept gains popularity and is adopted by additional cities, framing its implementation through the lens of mobility justice will be an important step to ensuring that the 15-Minute City improves mobility for all.
55
7 REFERENCES Andersen, M. (2015, March 31). Weak links: City finds traffic hot spots on neighborhood greenway system. Bike Portland. https://bikeportland.org/2015/03/31/weak-links-cityfinds-traffic-hot-spots-neighborhood-greenway-system-136322 Archer, D. N. (2020). “White men’s roads through black men’s homes”: Advancing racial equity through highway reconstruction. Vanderbilt Law Review, 73(5), 1259–1330. https://ssrn. com/abstract=3539889 Ashby, B. (2018). Transportation tomorrow survey 2016: City of Toronto summary by ward. Malatest. http://dmg.utoronto.ca/pdf/tts/2016/2016TTS_Summaries_Toronto_Wards. pdf Brookfield, K. (2017). Residents’ preferences for walkable neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 22(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234335 Burton, D. (2011). The use of case studies in social science research. In Research Training for Social Scientists (pp. 215–225). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi. org/10.4135/9780857028051 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. (2020, July). How to build back better with a 15-minute city. C40 Knowledge Hub. https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-to-buildback-better-with-a-15-minute-city?language=en_US
56
Choi, M., van Zandt, S., & Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2018). Can community land trusts slow gentrification? Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(3), 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/073521 66.2017.1362318 City of Cambridge. (2016). Growth & intensification study: Secondary plan stakeholder session. https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/resources/Growth-and-Intensification-Study/ G-and-I-Study_Hespeler-and-Coronation_Stakeholder-Session-Presentation.pdf City of Portland. (2012a). 20-minute neighborhoods analysis: Background report and analysis area summaries. https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index. cfm?c=51427&a=395048 City of Portland. (2012b). The Portland plan. https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/ index.cfm?c=58776&a=398384 Congress for the New Urbanism. (2001). Charter of the new urbanism. https://www.cnu.org/ sites/default/files/charter_english.pdf Cook, N., & Butz, D. (2019). Moving toward mobility justice. In N. Cook & D. Butz (Eds.), Mobilities, Mobility Justice and Social Justice (pp. 3–21). Routledge. de Francia, A. (2019, June 6). Opening conversations about active transportation in racialized suburbs. Spacing Toronto. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2019/06/06/openingconversations-about-active-transportation-in-racialized-suburbs/ Dickson, I. (2021, March 29). Sweden’s one-minute city success story. Here 360. https://360. here.com/one-minute-city-sweden Dunham-Jones, E., & Williamson, J. (2009). Retrofitting suburbia: Urban design solutions for redesigning suburbs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Everuss, L. (2019). “Mobility justice’’: A new means to examine and influence the politics of mobility. Applied Mobilities, 4(1), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2019.157 6489 Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press. Government of Ontario. (2020). A place to grow: Growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidationen-2020-08-28.pdf
57
Gunn, L. D., King, T. L., Mavoa, S., Lamb, K. E., Giles-Corti, B., & Kavanagh, A. (2017). Identifying destination distances that support walking trips in local neighborhoods. Journal of Transport and Health, 5, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.08.009 Hansen, R. (2020, February 19). People love the idea of 20-minute neighbourhoods. So why isn’t it top of the agenda? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/people-lovethe-idea-of-20-minute-neighbourhoods-so-why-isnt-it-top-of-the-agenda-131193 Hedin, K., Clark, E., Lundholm, E., & Malmberg, G. (2012). Neoliberalization of housing in Sweden: Gentrification, filtering, and social polarization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(2), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.620 508 Henderson, J., & Gulsrud, N. M. (2019). Street fights in Copenhagen: Bicycle and car politics in a green mobility city. Routledge. Herriges, D. (2019, August 28). The mobility trap: Why we’ll never fix congestion by speeding up. Strong Towns. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/28/the-mobility-trapwhy-well-never-fix-congestion-by-speeding-up-traffic Hidalgo, A. (2020). Ville du 1/4hr. Anne Hidalgo 2020. https://annehidalgo2020.com/ thematique/ville-du-1-4h/ Howard, E. (1902). The town-country magnet. In Garden Cities of Tomorrow (pp. 50–56). MIT Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House. Karner, A., London, J., Rowangould, D., & Manaugh, K. (2020). From transportation equity to transportation justice: Within, through, and beyond the state. Journal of Planning Literature, 35(4), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220927691 Kashef, M. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.003 Kelbaugh, D. (2007). Toward an integrated paradigm: Further thoughts on the three urbanisms. Places, 19(2), 12–19. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/25d4w94z Khan, F. (2018, December 13). Your city has a gender and it’s male. Nautilis. https://nautil.us/ issue/67/reboot/your-city-has-a-gender-and-its-male-rp
58
Krier, L. (1984). Houses, palaces, cities. AD Profile, 54(7/8). Krizek, K. J., Forsyth, A., & Baum, L. (2009). Walking and cycling international literature review: Final report. Victoria Department of Transport. https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/ downloads/Krizek%20Walking%20and%20Cycling%20Literature%20Review%202009-1. pdf Kusmer, A. (2020, June 9). After lockdown, Milan rolls out plan to open more streets to cyclists and pedestrians. The World. https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-06-09/after-lockdownmilan-rolls-out-plan-open-more-streets-cyclists-and-pedestrians le Corbusier. (1933). The Athens charter. Harvard University. Ledsham, T, & Verlinden, Y. (2019). Building bike culture beyond downtown: A guide to suburban community bike hubs. The Centre for Active Transportation. https://www. tcat.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Building-Bike-Culture-Beyond-Downtown-ReportWeb-Version-compressed.pdf Ledsham, T, & Savan, B. (2017). Building a 21st century cycling city: Strategies for action in Toronto. Metcalf Foundation. https://www.tcat.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ Building-a-21st-Century-Cycling-City.pdf Leistner, P. (2008, November 11). Hopes and challenges of democratic governance: Lessons from Portland, Oregon. Proceedings of 2008 National League of Cities Conference. National League of Cities. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/228157 LundbergDesign. (2020, September 24). Street moves is coming alive in Stockholm! The first prototypes are placed at Hälsingegatan, Tjärhovsgatan och Parmmätargatan [Image attached] [Status update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/539079912856557/ posts/3332156936882160/ Madanipour, A. (2004). Marginal public spaces in European cities. Journal of Urban Design, 9(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480042000283869 Mahmoudi, D., Lubitow, A., & Christensen, M. A. (2020). Reproducing spatial inequality? The sustainability fix and barriers to urban mobility in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geography, 41(6), 801–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1698865 McNeil, N. (2011). Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transportation Research Record, 2247, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-07 59
Melbourne Design Week. (n.d.). City planning for living local and 20-minute neighbourhoods Post-COVID in Melbourne. https://designweek.melbourne/events/spatial-work-lifebalance-city-planning-for-remote-work-living-local-and-20-minute-neighbourhoodspost-covid-in-melbourne/ Moreno, C. (2019, June 30). The 15 minutes-city: for a new chrono-urbanism! Carlos Moreno La Passion De L’Innovation. http://www.moreno-web.net/the-15-minutes-city-for-a-newchrono-urbanism-pr-carlos-moreno/ Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the “15-minute city”: Sustainability, resilience and place Identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities, 4, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006 Musterd, S. (2006). Segregation, urban space and the resurgent city. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1325–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600776418 Novakovic, S. (2019, January 8). Zoned out. Building. https://building.ca/feature/zoned-out/ O’Sullivan, F. (2021a, January 5). Make way for the “one-minute city.” Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-01-05/a-tiny-twist-on-street-designthe-one-minute-city?sref=Y5NzbMHF O’Sullivan, F. (2021b, March 2). Where the “15-minute city” falls short. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/the-downsides-of-a-15-minutecity?srnd=citylab O’Sullivan, F., & Bliss, L. (2020, November 12). The 15-minute city—no cars required— is urban planning’s new utopia. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ features/2020-11-12/paris-s-15-minute-city-could-be-coming-to-an-urban-area-nearyou Pereira, R. H. M., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews, 37(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2 016.1257660 Perry, C. (1929). City planning for neighborhood life. Social Forces, 8(1), 98–100. https:// heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/josf8&i=110 Pozoukidou, G., & Chatziyiannaki, Z. (2021). 15-minute city: Decomposing the new urban planning eutopia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13020928 60
Reid, C. (2020, June 28). Anne Hidalgo reelected as mayor. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/carltonreid/2020/06/28/anne-hidalgo-reelected-as-mayor-of-paris-vowing-toremove-cars-and-boost-bicycling-and-walking/?sh=136cfc611c85 Rudlin, D. (2020, September 23). What exactly is chrono-urbanism? Building Design. https:// www.bdonline.co.uk/opinion/what-exactly-is-chrono-urbanism/5108029.article Scarborough Cycles. (2021). Building bike culture in Scarborough. http://www. scarboroughcycles.ca/ Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Stanford University. https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf Sheller, M. (2018). Theorising mobility justice. Tempo Social, 30(2), 17–34. https://doi. org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763 Sisson, P. (2020, July 15). How the “15-minute city” could help post-pandemic recovery. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-15/mayorstout-the-15-minute-city-as-covid-recovery State of Victoria. (2017). Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. https://planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0007/377206/Plan_Melbourne_2017-2050_Strategy_.pdf State of Victoria. (2019a). Croydon South: Our 20-minute neighbourhood. https://www. planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/428909/Croydon-South-Our-20minute-neighbourhood.pdf State of Victoria. (2019b). Plan Melbourne implementation actions: Plan Melbourne 20172050. https://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/377125/3.Plan_Melbourne_2019_Implementation_Actions.pdf State of Victoria. (2019c). Strathmore: Our 20-minute neighbourhood. https://www.planning. vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/428910/Strathmore-Our-20-minuteneighbourhood.pdf State of Victoria. (2019d). Sunshine West: Our 20-minute neighbourhood. https://www. planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/428911/Sunshine-West-Our-20-minuteneighbourhood.pdf Tachieva, G. (2010). Sprawl repair manual. Island Press.
61
Toronto Public Health. (2012). The walkable city: Neighbourhood design and preferences, travel choices and health. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/9617TPH-walkable-city-report.pdf United Nations. (n.d.). Cities - United Nations sustainable development. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/peace-justice/ Verlinghieri, E., & Schwanen, T. (2020). Transport and mobility justice: Evolving discussions. Journal of Transport Geography, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102798 Ville du Paris. (2020, December 9). La ville du quart d’heure en images. Ville Du Paris. https:// www.paris.fr/pages/la-ville-du-quart-d-heure-en-images-15849 Way, H. K., Mueller, E., & Wegmann, J. (2021). Community land trusts (CLTs). The Uprooted Project. https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproject/9-tools-for-combattingdisplacement-in-texas/community-land-trusts-clts/ Weng, M., Ding, N., Li, J., Jin, X., Xiao, H., He, Z., & Su, S. (2019). The 15-minute walkable neighborhoods: Measurement, social inequalities and implications for building healthy communities in urban China. Journal of Transport and Health, 13, 259–273. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.05.005 Whitzman, C., Tucker, D., Bishop, A., Doyon, A., Jones, C., Lowen, T., & Mcmillan, E. (2013). Plan Melbourne: Can outer suburbs become 20 minute neighbourhoods? State of Australian Cities Conference 2013. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/2013-11/apo-nid59800.pdf Wilson, K. (2020, July 31). Top mayors pledge to build 15-minute cities for COVID-19 recovery. Streetsblog USA. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/07/31/top-mayors-pledge-to-build15-minute-cities-for-covid-19-recovery/ Yin, R. (2009). How to do better case studies: (With illustrations from 20 exemplary case studies). In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 254–282). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781483348858.n8
62
63
Mobility for All The Relationship Between the 15-Minute City and Mobility Justice Masters Thesis Jonathan Hann University of Copenhagen
64