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) 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).

Scales & Tensions

Local vs City-Wide Bodily

Built Environment Individual vs Infrastructure

Centre vs Suburb

Extended Urban

Figure 19: The scales of the 15-Minute City are sources of tension and potential conflict 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

(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)

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)

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

Ensure access is not deterred by a lack of network capital

Centre vs Suburb

Local vs City-Wide

Recognize the mobility needs of residents in all parts of an urban region

Coordinate initiatives and decisionmaking between the regional and local level