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 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,

Paris

Learn Work Share and reuse Stock up Fresh air Cultivate and engage Heal Circulate Shop Eat well Melboune

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 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 Portland

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.

Representative

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 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.

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.

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