I think he completely misunderstood 15 minute cities as a concept.

15 min cities mean cities that are mixed use enough that you can get all your needs within 15 mins without a car. Cities like this can be large and typically are extremely well connected, not isolated into enclaves like this person suggests.

This article is the most engineered rage bait I've seen so far. We've got 15 minute cities, COVID, work from home, "who pays for it" for public services, congestion pricing, somehow even NATO and the WHO got mentioned.

Add some outrage over bike paths (for or against) and this post will circulate reddit for weeks!

Is the premise of 15-minute cities really that every final destination is walkable within 15 minutes or that you can reach everything you need within 15 minutes?

If I live in a big city with good public transport and have most daily need things walkable within 15 minutes and good public transport connections also within 15 minutes then I can benefit from opportunities that are farther away while also having the locality of the rest of the day to day things.

That's what I personally would consider a 15-minute city

> The rise of autonomous vehicles and technologies like hyperloop may make a major difference to the way we travel around cities.

Harvard University Professor of Economics everyone. When discussing new modes of transport the _hyperloop_ is the exemplar. A technology that does not work, can not work, and will never work.

And, of course, no mention of e-bikes which are cheap, proven, and have seen large adoption in my neighborhood at the least. But of course that might have undermined his point.

An curious example where an academic at full-time at Harvard is obviously less qualified than millions of people that live in 15-minute cities all around the world. Maybe he should spend less time researching urban planning, and more time doing field work.

> The rise of autonomous vehicles and technologies like hyperloop may make a major difference to the way we travel around cities.

Oh, got it.

moving around could be accomplished by traveling, in decreasing order by efficiency (by those who can, obviously):

1) cycling 2) walking 3) train 4) cars 5) airplanes

and the frequency could follow an exponential distribution.

Every instance of the word city in that article, and the title, should have been qualified with 'US'.

Shanghai, Beijing, and other big Chinese cities are like that. People in places like that also think overnight delivery from AMZN is terribly slow.

Yeah I'm sorry but I can't take someone seriously that believes that Hyperloop will be a viable form of transportation. It's nothing but an idiotic fantasy and that's all it will ever be

I could not make the basic premise of this article... Is it that 15-minute cities would limit social mobility?? Is it that congestion pricing would limit social mobility? Am I just trying to make sense of an llm-generated word soup?

[dead]