Talk:15-minute city#Further reading

Hello! This is a stub that I'd like to add more detail to, including ongoing discussions of the concept during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Anne Hidalgo's plan in Paris. More information can be found on my user page. Jkolli (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oct 2021 - The article should likely be moved to "15-Minute City", as that appears to be the way that independent sources frequently refer to it. Calligraphically — Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm glad to see that more people have taken an interest in this article since I first proposed edits. I reorganized the existing text into sections, removed uncited information, and added more information to sections from my sandbox. For my next steps, I plan to add more examples of implementations, specifically from Asia, and expand the implications and critiques section. I welcome any edits! Jkolli (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Great job on this article! I noticed how much you expanded the page with specific examples of models and city implementation studies, which I thought helped a lot in understanding the feasibility and reasoning behind different concepts behind the 15 minute city. Information is presented in a way that gives background and room for the reader to form an opinion. In terms of future edits, it would be great to see more links and images (specifically an image of what a 15 minute city plan may look like could be helpful in visualizing the design and accessibility). Additionally, you can edit the lead to provide more of a roadmap to your later sections. Also, revising your headings for the implementation and critique section to separate the two into their own sections would make your last two sections more clear in terms of the content being presented. Content-wise, an important thing to consider may be to draw connections or to contrast between the different city examples and models. It might be helpful to see a summary table of some of the similar or differing ideas for the models/ implementation plans. Heatherkong (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is super great! I agree it would be super cool to include diagrams or other information that could help readers visualize, as well as maybe expanding on the examples section (particularly the Melbourne section, and maybe any other cities you're aware of. I think the lead could also include more info about the origins of the 15-minute city as well. Otherwise, great work!

Ebweav (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is well-organized and really clear. The only things I would add to User: Heatherkong's list are adding an image or two, if possible, and maybe changing the wording of the phrase, "...polycentric city, where density is made pleasant, where proximity is vibrant and where social intensity is real." I am not sure if you define polycentric city anywhere else, but a link might be helpful, and I also thought "proximity and vibrant and social intensity is real" could use some shortening. That's it though. MBJAnderson (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the examples cited of implementations do not seem to be explicitly related to the 15 minute city concept, but seem to simply be innovations in urban mobility, some in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the Bogotá section is entirely about cycling, and neither of the cited sources mention the "15 minute city" concept. Further, Bogotá had long been developing a cycle network. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

:On closer reading, most of the examples are fine, it's just the Lagos example, which seems to be more about food access than walk-ability (which is cited as merely a side effect), and the Bogotá example, which is about urban mobility, but is not specifically identified as an implementation of the 15-minute city concept and appears too generic to merit inclusion here (considering the countless other cities that expanded cycling routes or closed streets to cars during the COVID-19 pandemic). I suggest those two be removed.Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm pulling out a big chunk of the page, I thought I'd explain why. "Critics point out that the creation of dense, walkable cores like a 15-minute neighborhood often leads to gentrification and displacement" is not [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/928/htm in the source]; the closest thing there is "Finally, high accessibility to certain areas and the creation of hyper proximity cores are usually accompanied by rising property values, causing either gentrification phenomena or the confinement of lower income households to periphery. Hence provisions in regard to affordable and rental housing, available to diverse individuals and households, are critical and should be an integral part of [fifteen-minute cities'] policies." The article says that improving cities in general can lead to gentrification unless policies are included to preserve affordability. This is different from "improving cities leads to gentrification and displacement".

"Further, price increases, like those associated with gentrification, could be harmful to marginalized groups like people with disabilities, forcing move-outs" isn't a reasonable summary of [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/the-people-that-the-15-minute-city-leave-behind "The ‘15-Minute City’ Isn’t Made for Disabled Bodies"], which focuses on the problem that price increases can make the city unaffordable, and improving the city can make it more attractive, which (in the absence of more homes for people to move into) will make it more expensive. This isn't an argument for keeping the city unwalkable and inaccessible, and it shouldn't be presented as one.

"Similarly, as the concept's origin is largely European, critics have argued that implementing the model could be colonialist and perpetuate harm to marginalized communities" is not a reasonable way to summarize [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/the-downsides-of-a-15-minute-city Where the ‘15-Minute City’ Falls Short], which quotes Jay Pitter as saying "We've actually designed cities to create buffers between us across race and class specifically, and this proposal completely ignores a century of planning interventions that have actually concretized deep social divisions between people." The idea here is that it's harder to make American cities walkable and accessible than it is to make European cities that way; a few bike lanes alone won't cut it. This doesn't mean that walkability and accessibility are "colonialist".

Lastly, the idea that it's easier to implement a fifteen-minute city in an already-dense city is practically tautological, and doesn't qualify as a "critique". This doesn't leave anything, so I've removed the section entirely. grendel|khan 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

:Hi, proposing an update to the criticism section, which is very descriptive at this point using too much references. Here is a more concise alternative keeping the main point:

:"While many cities have implemented policies along the 15-minute city concept, disagreement remains over whether the model equally benefits residents. Arguments mainly point that pedestrian friendly neighborhood design may lead to gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents due to rising property values, if not accompinied by affordable housing provisions (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). "

:For the second part, it could be like this:

:"In addition, the 15-minute city concept is more feasible in cities with less urban sprawl, such as those in Europe. However, in Chengdu and Melbourne the concept has been implemented with the latter emphasizing the importance of public transit in expanding the radius of the 15-minute city, rather than walking or cycling."...

:buti am not sure there is such a clear source in the literature (though the argument is solid) Fancyarchitect (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Revised: I have removed repetitive references to the "Isobenefit Proposal by D'Acci" as they are not relevant to the main topic of the article, which is the "15-minute city" concept. There is still a mention in the "Research Models" section, though I am unsure if it is appropriate there, as well.

The goal of the "15-minute city" article is to provide information on this widely adopted urban planning approach, not to present a comprehensive list of all proposals that include a 15-minute travel time or similar idea. There have been many such proposals dating back to the early 20th century, including those by Ebenezer Howard, Eb. Howard, CA. Doxiadis, and C.Rowe Additionally, 5-minute and 15-minute models have been widely used in thousands of research studies. However, including every single proposal in this article would detract from its focus and clarity. Let's work together to ensure that the content remains informative and relevant. Fancyarchitect (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition is uncontroversial, it doesn't need multiple citations (xref MOS). Accordingly, I have moved all but one down to a new External links section. If anyone considers any of these especially important, then a new section is needed to reflect the points they make and it can be reclaimed to support it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

:It's funny that you state it's non-controversial, because I came to the talk page because I disagree with the notion that it's a "residential" concept. 15-minute neighborhoods are necessarily mixed-use...and I expect that the only excluded uses would likely be heavy industry. I'd propose removing the word "residential" from the definition. Rodneyr (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

::It is the definition is uncontroversial. I acknowledge that the principle itself is disputed. If you believe that the word "residential" should be removed, you need to show that a consensus of expert opinion considers it irrelevant. Your opinion (and mine, of course) is of no significance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

::But your analysis makes sense. I haven't checked the citation to see if it actually says so, and don't have time now. Would you do it please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"FMC" has been added. I prefer "10MC" as it makes iy easy to compare with eg "20MC". S C Cheese (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

:OK. Do you have a reliable source for that abbreviation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

::https://dutpartnership.eu/the-15-minute-city-transition-pathway-15mc/

::They style it as "15mC" S C Cheese (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Changed in article, as above. S C Cheese (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, the article starts to get pretty good. Here are some thoughts:

1.Texts should be less descriptive when citing authors. The field is new and many viewpoints are added every week. Instead of [author] suggests and proposes that [.......] , it is better to style text as [argument or opinion] (citation)

2.My suggestion is to restructure a little bit "limitations" and "criticism". The two terms are often overlapping but there is distinction between them: Limitations refer to situations where a theory cannot work properly. Criticism is more subjective, and is about situations that it would work, but in a harmfull (bad) way. That probably includes conspiracies views, as well. So, the sections could be re-arranged as:

Limitations:

While the theory has many potential benefits, including reducing car dependence and promoting walkability in urban areas, it also has limitations.

One limitation is the difficulty or impracticality of implementing the 15-minute city concept in established urban areas, where land use patterns and infrastructure are already in place. Additionally, the concept may not be feasible in areas with low population density, more urban sprawl or in low-income communities where transportation options are limited.{{Cite news |date=2020-11-12 |title=The 15-Minute City—No Cars Required—Is Urban Planning's New Utopia |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-12/paris-s-15-minute-city-could-be-coming-to-an-urban-area-near-you |access-date=2021-03-12}} However, it should be noted that cities like Chengdu and Melbourne have utilized the concept in order to curb urban sprawl and stress the importance of public transit in expanding the radius of the 15-minute city.{{Cite news |date=2020-07-15 |title=How the '15-Minute City' Could Help Post-Pandemic Recovery |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-15/mayors-tout-the-15-minute-city-as-covid-recovery |access-date=2021-04-14}}

Furthermore, when the concept is applied as a literal spatial analysis research tool, it then refers to the use of an isochrone to express the radius of an area considered local.{{Cite journal |last=Boukouras |first=Efstathios |year=2022 |title=The question of proximity. Demographic ageing places the 15-minute-city theory under stress |url=http://www.urbanisticainformazioni.it/IMG/pdf/ui306si_sessione_01.pdf |journal=Urbanistica Informazioni |volume=sessione_01 |issue=306 s.i |pages=21–24}} Isochrones have a long history of utilization in transportation planning and are constructed primarily using two variables: time and speed. However, the reliance on population-wide conventions, such as gait speed, to estimate the buffer zones of accessible areas may not accurately reflect the mobility capabilities of specific population groups, like the elderly. This may result in potential inaccuracies and fallacies in research models. In addition, depending too much on physically demanding mobility, could also exclude the physically disabled.{{Cite news |date=2021-04-22 |title=The '15-Minute City' Isn't Made for Disabled Bodies |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/the-people-that-the-15-minute-city-leave-behind |access-date=2021-04-29}}.

Criticism:

While many cities have implemented policies along the 15-minute city concept, disagreement remains over whether the model will equally benefit residents of all social strata. Arguments mainly point that pedestrian friendly neighborhood design may lead to gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents or marginalized groups due to rising property values, especially if not accompinied by affordable housing provisions{{Cite journal |last1=Pozoukidou |first1=Georgia |last2=Chatziyiannaki |first2=Zoi |date=2021-01-18 |title=15-Minute City: Decomposing the New Urban Planning Eutopia |journal=Sustainability |language=en |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=928 |doi=10.3390/su13020928 |issn=2071-1050 |doi-access=free}}.

Conspiracy theories about the 15-minute concept theories have also flourished, including claims that the model will fine residents for leaving their home districts.{{Cite web |last=Lloyd Parry |first=Roland |date=15 February 2023 |title=Conspiracy theories on '15-minute cities' flourish |url=https://phys.org/news/2023-02-conspiracy-theories-minute-cities-flourish.html |via=phys.org}}{{Cite web |last=Elledge |first=John |date=February 2023 |title=How have 15-minute cities become a conspiracy theory? |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/02/fifteen-minute-cities-will-be-back-conspiracy-theories-house-commons |website=newstatesman.com}}{{Cite web |date=2023-02-15 |title=Conspiracy theories on '15-minute cities' flourish |url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230215-conspiracy-theories-on-15-minute-cities-flourish |access-date=2023-02-15 |website=France 24 |language=en}} British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher called 15-minute cities an "international socialist concept" during a debate in the UK Parliament in February 2023.{{cite web |last=Wainwright |first=Oliver |date=16 February 2023 |title=In praise of the '15-minute city' – the mundane planning theory terrifying conspiracists |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/15-minute-city-planning-theory-conspiracists |website=The Guardian}} (OpEd) Fancyarchitect (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

:I wholly agree of adding a "conspiracy theory" section to the article as it has grown more attention to the tinfoil hat crowd. The topic doesn't warrant its own page so having it here would be better suited. Grandtubetrains (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{old heading|Emptiness of the subject / Misses the point}}

The way the subject is presented seems to come from people who have never seen a X-minute city in their live.

There are such cities literally everywhere across many countries, and it's been like that for thousands of years.

I think the concept should redefined by contrasting *some* new big cities with *most* old cities. 2A01:E0A:909:95B0:C12F:53BB:C47B:6236 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

:Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal experiences. If there are such sources contrasting new and old "15-minute cities", feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor has been tagging the conspiracy theory section with NPOV tags, seemingly objecting to the existence of the section, or maybe the description "conspiracy theory." I've protected the article to ensure that discussion occurs here rather than via tagging and edit summaries claiming that the NPOV policy demands that we do what the editor says without further question. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

:Defining alternate viewpoints or criticisms as "conspiracy theories" because they contradict your personal viewpoints is inherently in violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View standard. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.", "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." {{RPA|, and an abuse of your privileges as an administrator.}} The article could easily be revised to be truly impartial as follows:

:Conspiracy theories

:In 2023, unfounded conspiracy theories criticism about the 15-minute concept began to flourish, which described the model as an instrument of government oppression. These claims are often part of or linked to other conspiracy theories that assert that Western governments seek to oppress their populations, such as QAnon, anti-vaccinationism or misinformation related to criticism of 5G technology. Proponents of the 15-minute concept, including Carlos Moreno, have received death threats.

:Some conspiracy theorists critics conflate the 15-minute concept with the British low-traffic neighborhood approach, which includes license plate scanners in some implementations. This has led conspiracy theorists those critics to assert that the 15-minute model would fine residents for leaving their home districts, or that it would confine people in "open-air prisons". In a 2023 protest by some 2,000 demonstrators in Oxford, signs described 15-minute cities as "ghettos" and an instrument of "tyrannical control" by the World Economic Forum.

:Canadian media personality Jordan Peterson has described 15-minute cities as a "perversion", linking them to the "Great Reset" conspiracy theory. British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher called 15-minute cities an "international socialist concept" during a February 2023 debate in the UK Parliament. QAnon supporters have claimed the February 2023 derailment of a train carrying hazardous chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio was part of a deliberate plot to force rural residents into 15-minute cities in order to restrict their personal freedom. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

:BTW I didn't demand that you, "do what the editor says without further question." I validly pointed out the violation of Wikipedia policy. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for coming here and providing a detailed discussion, rather than just tag-bombing the article and picking out pieces of the NPOV policy in edit summaries. Discussion is required when you tag an article, just tagging is regarded as disruptive, and I semi-protected the article to ensure that you came here for an actual discussion.

::NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe concepts in the same manner that a consensus of reliable sources does. Are you asserting that the references do not, or are you just objecting that Wikipedia is reporting discussions of a conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory? Do you dispute the references? Do you object to the section? It appears to me that you wish to describe the conspiracy theories as something else. What do you suggest, and is that supported by referencing? Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

:::{{RPA|Come on, we both know what is going on here. You are playing games.}} The NPOV says:

:::"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

:::This is the exact opposite of what you are doing. If you want to say that a source calls these criticisms "conspiracy theories", the text should read something along the lines of, "The New York Times [48] calls these claims, which they link to other ideas that assert that Western governments seek to oppress their populations, such as QAnon, anti-vaccinationism or "misinformation related to 5G technology", conspiracy theories". 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

::::A less aggressive tone in your comments concerning your perception of the motivations of other editors would be appreciated.

::::In general, NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe something in accordance with the consensus of reliable sources, and doesn’t demand that it be watered down to imply that there is validity to, for example, QAnon. If something is hogwash, then that’s what Wikipedia calls it. However, attribution of views in text, as you appear to be requesting, is generally encouraged in preference to Wikivoice, as long as it doesn’t veer into both sidesism when there is significant imbalance between the consensus of mainstream sources and fringe views. Since you’re fond of quoting policy, a reading of WP:FRINGE might be valuable, since it forms a component of NPOV. In particular, since you’ve brought it up, WP:ITA discusses how and when to use in-text attribution. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::My tone is mine and not yours to choose. {{RPA|I think you are a political hack. I think that you are abusing your position as an admin, and I think that devalues Wikipedia.}}

:::::But tone is the issue here. I have asked that the tone of the article be changed to reflect that of a proper unbiased Wikipedia article. I have not asked that any information be changed. I have not asked that any sources be changed. I have only asked that terms like "conspiracy theorist" which are commonly used to devalue opposing viewpoints and which are inherently biased either be omitted or be referred to as the opinion or conclusion of a valid source. You have refused because??? Wikipedia should never say, "X is a conspiracy theory". Wikipedia can say, "The New York Times says this is a conspiracy theory. Jordan Peterson says it isn't."

:::::Could you please point me to the exact paragraph where is states, "NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe something in accordance with the consensus of reliable sources", because I have quoted to you the exact paragraph where is states that it doesn't and that it actually states the opposite. Also, what is your consensus of reliable sources? You have ONE, the New York Times, for most of the section and one more at the end talking about the train derailment. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::And honestly, if you or someone else wrote a really comprehensive article with compelling sources from many different parts of the political spectrum showing why these viewpoints are legitimately conspiracy theories, fringe theories (you have Jordan Petersen and British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher promoting them so they aren't fringe theories), etc... with a legitimate back and forth and a true discussion of the facts that didn't begin and end with "we call hogwash on hogwash" and contain only one source, that would be incredibly useful {{RPA|, but you didn't, you just wrote a low rent hatchet job}}. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::NPOV doesn't mean using {{tq|sources from many different parts of the political spectrum}}. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We go by reliable sources {{tq|with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} per WP:SOURCES. If reliable sources say Jordan Peterson and Nick Fletcher are spouting fringe conspiracy theories, then we label their positions as such per WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::In particular, reframing misinformation related to 5G technology as mere "criticism" and omitting the "conspiracy" from both QAnon and Great Reset conspiracy theories is highly misleading. What's next, do we refer to Moon landing conspiracy theories as "criticism of NASA"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor has added a drive-by "clarify" tag but failed to open a discussion topic to explain what they think needs clarifying. In an edit summary, they finally said {{tpq|No one knows what the hell "isobenefit" or "morphogenetic" mean}}. I have to agree: these are echo-chamber jargon words.

• Wiktionary has no entry for "Isobenefit" (though we might guess at its meaning from the iso- prefix but that wouldn't advance us much.
• Wiktionary defines "morphogenesis" as "(biol) The differentiation of tissues and subsequent growth of structures in an organism." which again doesn't advance us much.

So, although I have a kneejerk dislike of drive-by tagging and tend to revert on sight if not accompanied by a talk page item, in this case I think that the IP was being charitable. The section is content-free prolix and does no credit to D'Acci, to the case for 15-minute cities or indeed to Wikipedia in general. So unless someone familiar with D'Acci's work who can rewrite it very soon, it really needs to be concealed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you mean by concealed. I was considering deleting the section altogether. It really seems like a hopeless mess. It made me wonder what Alan Sokal is up to these days. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

::Taken out of live space, for example cut and pasted here for open-heart surgery. I assume good faith by whoever wrote it but it reads like a version one LLM wrote it on a bad day. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

:::I've gone and deleted it, but I copy the content here, for the record. _signed, Willondon (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

{{collapse top|left=yes|title=Removed content which may be salvagable with some work}}

D'Acci and the T*-minute city

In 2013,{{Cite journal |last=D’Acci |first=Luca |date=2013 |title=Simulating future societies in Isobenefit Cities: Social isobenefit scenarios |url=https://www.ihs.nl/sites/corporate/files/simulating_future_societies_in_isobenefit_cities.pdf |journal=Futures |language=en |volume=54 |pages=3–18 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.004 |issn=0016-3287}}{{cite arXiv |eprint=1408.2874v3 |class=cs.CY |first1=Luca |last1=D'Acci |title=Urban DNA for cities evolutions. Cities as physical expression of dynamic equilibriums between competitive and cooperative forces |date=12 August 2014}} Luca D'Acci introduced the concept of isobenefit urbanism, a spontaneous-guided planning approach based on a morphogenetic code inducing a T*-minute city (T*= a reasonable time to reach destination by walking) where one can reach within 1km/1mile: natural land, shops, amenities, services and places of work. It is based on a code for the simulations of isobenefit urban morphogenesis. It is a code to simulate urban growth scenario by modifying as one wishes the values of the parameters. The latter are related to densities, surface, population size, random factors and built probabilities. This urban growth model results in infinite outputs all satisfying the isobenefit urbanism objective function.{{Cite journal |last=D'Acci |first=Luca |date=2019 |title=A new type of cities for liveable futures. Isobenefit Urbanism morphogenesis |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/219689799.pdf |via=CORE |journal=Journal of Environmental Management |language=en |volume=246 |pages=128–140 |doi=10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.129 |issn=0301-4797 |pmid=31176977 |s2cid=182950321}}{{cite conference |last1=D'Acci |first1=L. S. |last2=Marshall |first2=S. |last3=Van Oort |first3=F. |last4=Rogers |first4=C. D. F. |last5=Gabrieli |first5=T. |last6=Voto |first6=M. |date=2021 |title=Planning, environmental, economic perspectives of urban isobenefit morphogenesis. |id=presented at Ecocity World Summit 2021}}{{Cite web |last=Gabrieli |first=Tommaso |date=15 March 2022 |title=Future Urban Growth Lab |publisher=University College London; Bartlett School of Planning |url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/planning/research-projects/2022/mar/future-urban-growth-lab}}

{{reflist talk}}

{{collapse bottom}}

This phrase does not make much logical sense. "Walk" and "bike" in this context are being equated as similar, but they are not. A 15 minute bike ride (5km) is equivalent to a 1 hour walk (google maps). This phrase equates to saying that "amenities and services are at most 1.2 or 5 km away".

It is either one or the other. One of these numbers is redundant, either services and amenities are within a 5km range or a 1.2km range. It sounds like it is just a catch phrase or marketing slogan, but it just confuses the article when we are using it like it is a factual fully formed informative statement. Wisnoskij (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|Acroterion}} and {{ping|Sangdeboeuf}} - What is your goal here? to suppress ANY academic criticism of this "15 minute city" concept simply because you don't like it and your goal is to sanitize the article of ANY criticism?

Edward Glaeser is well known for his research into the economics of cities. We currently have NO criticism in this article, and a whole section at the beginning sourced only to people who have written articles about this concept, some not even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.

The criticism isn't just "Glaeser doesn't like it" but he articulates the problems he sees with this concept and offers what he sees as better alternatives. But you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? so you want to keep it out of Wikipedia? ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

:Please stop with the assumptions concerning the motivations of other editors. You've been around long enough to understand WP:DUE - this appears to be heavily weighted toward a single critic. Are there no others, or other dissenting voices in academia (as opposed to the conspiracy rumor mill)? It appears to me that devoting a paragraph to one person's views is disproportionate. I would expect to see a diversity of critical academic views. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

::I have not yet found more than one academic criticism (and no other editors have yet either). OF COURSE it is weighted toward a single critic, the source for that paragraph was written by Glaeser himself, as a WP:SPS from an expert in the field. If you can find any more sources I'd be glad to summarize them, but for now this is all we seem to have. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

:::I'll look around. I have no objection to Glaeser per se, but if he's the only serious dissent it needs to be kept to a very concise summary of his views. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

::::I forgot to point out that he is one of a very small number of well recognized economists who have studied the effects of zoning policies on housing costs and economic growth in cities, and therefore his opinion/assessment would be one of the more significant voices in the field. Other views would definitely be good to have as well. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::A blog post is a poor source for {{tq|academic criticism}}. Are there no peer-reviewed articles describing the dispute from a disinterested perspective, as required by WP:BALANCE? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::What dispute are you talking about? The 15-min city is a CONCEPT or PROPOSAL or SUGGESTION on how cities should construct/reshape their physical environment, with the people originating and proposing this as the OBVIOUS proponents who put forward their ideas on why it would improve cities from their current state. Glaeser has written his criticism of certain aspects of these ideas from an ECONOMIC perspective, which is what his expertise is in. He didn't talk about or criticize the social impact; he's not a sociologist.

::::::If you look at the sources currently in this article, they all talk about the 15-min city as: Introducing the "15-Minute City" (2021) - how many peer-reviewed articles do you think exist about a CONCEPT/PROPOSAL that has first gotten widespread discussion/publicity in ~2020? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::That different people support and oppose the concept itself implies a dispute, whether their respective support and opposition are rooted in economics, sociology, or any other discipline.{{PB}}If the most prominent economic critique of the concept is to be found in a [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/ blog post], rather than an academic journal or monograph, that suggests the critique itself is WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC) {{small|edited 22:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)}}

::::::::So you just repeated what you said and ignored my point about this being a new concept.

::::::::I'll repeat my question: How many peer-reviewed articles (or academic journals or monographs) do you think exist about a concept/proposal that has first gotten widespread discussion/publicity in ~2020? The conspiracy theories got this topic far more publicity than it had before. (though all false information)

::::::::Your arguments seem to me that you care more about yourself being right than about making a better encyclopedia. Have you never worked on articles about new subjects? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::The fact that it's a new concept does not mean we can ignore WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALANCE, which are policy. It seems that you are trying to shoehorn criticism into the article for political reasons rather than to build an encyclopedia. Maybe you think Glaeser's criticisms are valid; nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place to "set the record straight" on this or any other issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::We already cite several articles presenting various critiques of the concept under {{xt|{{alink|Limitations}}}}, including one peer-reviewed journal article ({{citelink|Pozoukidou|Chatziyiannaki|2021|rev=1187861621|nb=y}}). The idea that I or anyone else is trying to {{tq|sanitize the article of ANY criticism}} is plainly nonsensical. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for your reply. I had only quickly reviewed the article when I added the "Obstacles to implementation" paragraph, and then later added the Glaeser paragraph. Now that I have read the Limitations section (thank you for pointing that out), I feel that the Glaeser critique could easily be trimmed to one to two sentences and put there. Edward Glaeser is a notable economist known for his studies of urban economics. (see this section). Seeing as neither Georgia Pozoukidou and Zoi Chatziyiannaki are notable enough scholars to have Wikipedia articles, it doesn't seem at all UNDUE to have a summary of his criticisms there. I have no issue with not having a separate section as the Reception section I created; I didn't notice the critiques in the Limitations section when I added the Glaeser content, or I would have probably put it there. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Anyone can create a Wikipedia article, so that by itself is not an indicator of notability. The WP:WEIGHT issue is down to the fact that unlike Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, the Glaeser source is a blog rather than an edited academic work, as I've already mentioned. Nor is notability itself a guarantee of reliability; plenty of notable academics have pushed fringe theories. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::You are correct on both of those points; but WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

::::::::::::And, this is not just some personal blog, this is his blog at the London School of Economics, hardly an irreputable institution. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::The bottom of his blog post states: "This post represents the views of the author and not those of the COVID-19 blog, nor LSE. It is based on Edward Glaeser’s contribution to Localising Transport: Towards the 15-minute city or the one-hour metropolis?, an event hosted by LSE Cities, the Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft and the LSE School of Public Policy, and supported by SAP SE and knowledge partner Teralytics."

::::::::::::"Localising Transport: Towards the 15-minute city or the one-hour metropolis?" is a link to a YouTube video; I haven't watched it yet. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm not sure whether we can say Glaeser has actually published work in the relevant field; urban planning and urban economics seem like different specialties. In any case, the blog entry is still a primary source for the author's opinions, and should therefore be used with caution if at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Different specialties, yes, but highly interrelated. Glaeser has done studies on zoning's effect on housing prices, as well as other reserach. Zoning is urban planning and housing costs are one of its effects, which then are urban economics.

::::::::::::::I agree about the caution when using primary sources; if you read the way I wrote the addition, I was very careful about attributing this as his opinion(s), rather than fact. I wrote: Glaeser said, he said, and he says for every sentence. (which can be reduced from the three sentences I crafted.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

{{re|Sangdeboeuf}} Are you ok with me adding the below summary of Glaser's post, and in a better location than my previous edit, now to the "Limitations" section?

Economist Edward Glaeser is highly critical of the concept, stating that while he supports the idea of walkable cities and congestion pricing to reduce carbon emissions, the 15-minute city would be not be a city but "an enclave — a ghetto – a subdivision" which "would stop cities from fulfilling their true role as engines of opportunity." He advocates instead that governments should subsidize and improve transportation for the poor so that every neighborhood can have access to the whole of the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:My opinion has not changed. What reliable, secondary sources are you getting this summary of Glaeser's critique from? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::A good question. For two reasons. One is that, though the blog of someone so eminent as Glaeser is usable, it's still only a blog. And, in this blog, his ideas do not seem to be well-developed. He feels that "we should bury the idea of a city that is chopped up into 15-minute bits." It appears that his idea of a 15-minute city is a city based on sociologically-separate, internally-complete enclaves, rather than a city of overlapping facilities. In the UK cities I'm most familiar with, to the extent that they do already work as 15-minute cities, the 15-minute zones overlap considerably, and my limited reading on the subject doesn't bring up any suggestion that separation of enclaves is either a necessary or even a likely result of working towards the 15-minute concept. Thus, I don't think that his concepts are well-thought-through. I feel that it would be WP:UNDUE to include them now. I would defer to any consensus here of course, and would be happy to change my mind if Glaeser or others develop and test their hypotheses more explicitly. Preferably in academic papers, unequivocally WP:RS. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Richard Keatinge}} Thanks for the explanation, but aren't we supposed to treat sources like this by including them AND the rebuttal they possibly receive from later sources? Sure, Glaeser may be off-base in his analysis here, but my proposed addition was merely to state what his OPINION is. Paul Krugman has a NYT blog which gets cited many times on Wikipedia for his opinion, yet years later he often admits in that same blog his previous errors or misjudgements (meaning his opinions turned out to be wrong). No editors seem to require secondary analysis of Krugman's opinions on ANY economic topic about which he writes, or RS's to cover his blog before including his OPINION.

:::This 15-min city concept is so new that currently we only have ONE, ONE-SENTENCE criticism of the concept in this article, the sentence that starts with: "In a paper published in the journal Sustainability, Georgia Pozoukidou and Zoi Chatziyiannaki write.."

:::From my understanding, we don't suppress sources because editors doing their own Original Research believe that the OPINION of the author is wrong. His opinion may well be wrong, but he said it and it pertains to the subject of this article.

:::Take a look at Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Opinions_of_notable_individuals - we have a whole section dedicated to opinions of notable people, whether or not their opinion is peer-reviewed in RS's, (lots of these are direct statements from the individuals) and that got majorly trimmed some years back to its current size, so we had a LOT more. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Other random articles have little to no bearing on this article. Nevertheless, observing that opinions of notable people have been {{em|removed}} elsewhere is a rather self-defeating rationale for adding such opinions here. {{pb}} Neutrality is achieved by citing high-quality secondary and tertiary sources that describe the dispute from a disinterested viewpoint, not dueling blog posts. The fact that the topic is relatively new is not a reason to use low-quality sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Indeed. I would add that if we actually had dueling blog posts by suitable authorities we might justify their inclusion in our encyclopaedia. But we have exactly one blog post, giving a point of view which, in due course, may well prove useful in some times and places, but which is presented without empirical evidence and without a developed theoretical argument. It is UNDUE here, and indeed, I suggest, UNDUE even in Glaeser's own article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You said {{tpq|which is presented without empirical evidence and without a developed theoretical argument.}} - That is also true for this ENTIRE 15-min city CONCEPT, there is ZERO empirical evidence showing it works. This is NOT a scientifically proven optimal city layout, it is some people's philosophy about how cities SHOULD be, (with some theory generated to make it sound believable) and as such, should be treated like philosophy articles. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Your assumption about the reason for deletion is wrong. The "Income_inequality_in_the US" article had the entire article trimmed (ALL SECTIONS, including well sourced content) because it was simply too large. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}There is some analysis of empirical data which could be usefully outlined in this article. Google Scholar may be your friend here, see for one example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11067-025-09670-6 "This paper measured and presented the 15-minute city in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Sect. 3.1.2.) based on the 8 most reported activities from a mobility survey (excluding work). Survey data was then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the 15-minute city in promoting sustainable travel, namely in encouraging non-motorized travel and the use of transit instead of car and in reducing CO2 emissions per household. Land use characteristics of the place of residence were considered to estimate the “net” effect of the 15-minute city – that is, the effect that proximity to amenities has on the travel-related variables, independent of centrality, rail-based transit supply and density (the land-use variables used in this study), which also allowed us to estimate their combined effect." I also note some theoretical work which considerably develops the ideas adumbrated by Glaeser. But, to repeat, a single blog post is WP:UNDUE here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is clear that I won't get consensus for inclusion on the Glaeser post, but thanks for the discussion.

:Thank you for pointing me to this! I'll see what I can find. The last time I did a Google scholar search on this topic was when this discussion started, November 2023. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{re|Sangdeboeuf}}{{re|Richard Keatinge}} Change of course - now that there is a secondary source for Glaeser's criticism, where should I put this, as in what article section do you think would be most appropriate?

My summary text would be: "Economist Edward Glaeser is critical of the concept, and stated that it would increase “enormous inequalities in cities” by dividing them rather than better connecting them."

Here's the NYT quote, since it is behind a paywall; I included the whole paragraph: "Critics of 15-minute cities have been outspoken, arguing that a concept developed in Europe may not translate well to highly segregated American cities. A Harvard economist wrote in a blog post for the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2021 that the concept was a “dead end” that would exacerbate “enormous inequalities in cities” by subdividing without connecting them." The NYT links to his blog post under the text "in a blog post"- [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/28/technology/carlos-moreno-15-minute-cities-conspiracy-theories.html] - source already was in the article, and I just used it to support when Moreno introduced the concept and that he is the originator of the concept. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:From your description the NYT article is merely reporting that he wrote it. There is no analysis or critical evaluation compared and contrasted with other authors and perspectives. It is not a secondary source as I understand the term.

:That NYT article is cited a few times. Someone with access really needs to evaluate it to see if the other references meet our quality standards. A report that Moreno gave a TED talk is only a good citation that he did indeed give the talk but it is not a secondary source for its content. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. The typical "he said, she said" style of most news reporting is not the same as interpretation, evaluation, or analysis by a secondary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, I can't magically give you both access (because I think posting that entire article here would be copyvio), but if you read that NYT article, the author gives an entire history of Moreno's past work and then how he gradually developed the 15-min city concept, how others gave real critique of the concept (not the conspiracists) and then the whole perspective about the conspiracies, so it seems to me that this IS a valid secondary source if you were to read the article; it's not just a journalist reprinting "X think-tank released report that says Y".

:::I accidentally found this the other day because I just thought we should have a secondary source behind the Moreno claims (which there wasn't one previously) and thought I'd read that NYT article to see whether it mentions any of the people in the Research models OTHER than Moreno, (he was in the title) but it doesn't. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Revised and streamlined version of my earlier proposal for clarity and proper citation formatting.

Hello editors,

I would like to propose adding a new section to this article titled "Early Prototypes and Related Models" that references an earlier, published urban model known as the Garden City of Today (GCoT). This model was created by ecological designer Marcus Busby and first published in 2014. It demonstrates strong conceptual overlap with the 15-minute city framework — including polycentric layout, walkability, spatial equity, regenerative greenspaces, food sovereignty, and decentralization.

The GCoT was:

• Publicly published on Scribd in June 2014
• Shared via Twitter in September 2014
• Uploaded to Flickr in October 2014
• Described in a 2015 research paper on Academia.edu
• Created at the same scale later defined by CNU’s 15-minute and 5-minute catchments
• Included Commons-archived masterplan diagrams
• Included a 2015 image citation from Routledge author David Thorpe a recognised Urban Sustainability expert employed as Special Consultant for Sustainable Cities Collective (now Smart Cities Dive) part of the Industry Dive Group

It was also presented to the Urbanism Department of the Mairie de Paris in 2014 and received feedback from noted scholars such as Michael Batty, Nikos Salingaros, and Pierre Frankhauser.

A preview of the proposed section, including citations and figure, is available here in my sandbox:

👉 User:CRCLe5me/sandbox and is also presented below.

Dear {{Ping|Patrick_Welsh}}, {{Ping|JMF}} and {{Ping|Sangdeboeuf}} I welcome your feedback on whether this addition meets the threshold for verifiability and relevance, and how best to integrate it. Thank you!

–– CRCLe5me (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @CRCLe5me, thanks for following up. I'm only just back at my computer. I'll let others more familiar with the topic weigh in on content. The issue that jumps out to me is that, except for the CNU article, these are self-published sources. Wikipedia's policy on WP:RELIABLESOURCES excludes these, and it's enforced strictly. You should probably also look at WP:SELFCITE. Are there other sources you can use? Peer-reviewed or academic presses are best, but journalistic sources from reputable outlets are also entirely acceptable. Best, Patrick (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I concur with Patrick: these are show-stoppers, sorry. In addition, the image is clearly tagged at the side with {{code |© 2014 Marcus Busby}} so I have tagged it for deletion at Commons. Your reproduction of someone else's work is not your work to give away. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::He'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the editor is the Marus Busby, and so he should be able to release this to the Commons if he wishes. Is there a help page or essay that you could direct him to about doing so correctly? I know almost nothing about image permissions... Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If so, then the Commons help desk can explain how he should identify himself satisfactorily there. Immediately he can respond to my deletion tag with request to keep.

::::But for en.wikipedia, that creates a further complication: WP: conflict of interest and WP:no original research. That takes it above my pay grade too, so I advise that he puts a {{tl|helpme}} on his talk page as the next step (when he is familiar with those two policy statements), to request more expert advice. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Dear Patrick Welsh I have added a 2015 image citation from Routledge Urban Sustainability author David Thorpe a recognised expert employed as Special Consultant and journalist for Sustainable Cities Collective (now Smart Cities Dive) part of the Industry Dive Group. CRCLe5me (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources, and it is not a platform for promoting the work of its editors. I appreciate that you are using the talk page like this and being transparent, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must make a good faith effort to abide by its policies and guidelines. Thanks, Patrick (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

File:GCoT Masterplan v.1 2014 by Marcus Daniel Busby.jpg

Although the 15-minute city was popularized by Carlos Moreno in 2016, earlier conceptual frameworks incorporated many of its key features. Notably, in 2014, ecological designer and urban theorist Marcus Busby developed the "Garden City of Today" (GCoT) model. The GCoT proposed a decentralized, polycentric, and multi-scalar urban layout based on fractal geometry and permaculture design principles. It advocated walkable neighborhoods with integrated greenspace, food sovereignty, and localized employment hubs.

In 2014, the GCoT model was submitted to the UK Government’s Garden Cities Prospectus and the UK’s Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), and shortly afterwards, presented to the Urbanism Department of the Mairie de Paris. Correspondence with Philippe Cauvin (Head of Urbanism) and Dr. David Crave (Urban Ecology Agency) confirms the department’s interest and direct engagement with the design. The model’s principles prefigured many tenets of the 15-minute city—particularly spatial proximity, ecological regeneration, and urban self-sufficiency—while introducing a recursive, polycentric structure to avoid single-core urban dependency.

The GCoT was also presented as a scaled, city-level masterplan. Its spatial hierarchy and service radii match the 15-minute and 5-minute walking catchments defined in the Congress for the New Urbanism’s (CNU) 2021 framework on the 15-minute city. These proportions are visible in the original 2014 GCoT diagrams, such as those publicly posted to Flickr and shared via Twitter/X.

The Flickr image titled “GCoT Presented as a 15-minute City” illustrates the same polycentric city plan with clear local centers, green belts, and service nodes — all drawn to the same scale as earlier date-stamped images and features scaled overlays consistent with the CNU metrics for neighborhood walkability. indicating a design and scaling provenance to be inherent in the Original 2014 GCoT drawings and plans.

In April 2015, Routledge urban sustainability author David Thorpe included Marcus Busby's Garden City of Today (GCoT) model in an article on the Sustainable Cities Collective (now Smart Cities Dive) website. The piece included an image of the GCoT masterplan, highlighting its relevance to early smart city discussions. Although the live version on Smart Cities Dive no longer displays the image, the archived version preserves it, underscoring the GCoT model's early circulation and contribution to concepts now central to the 15-minute city framework.

The GCoT design received positive feedback from academic figures in complexity science and urban morphology, including Prof. Michael Batty (UCL), Prof. Pierre Frankhauser (Université de Franche-Comté), and Prof. Nikos Salingaros (University of Texas), each of whom acknowledged its theoretical rigor and relevance to emergent urban design paradigms.

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus Daniel |title=GCoT Masterplan v.1 (2014) |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GCoT_Masterplan_v.1_2014_by_Marcus_Daniel_Busby.jpg |website=Wikimedia Commons |date=2014 |access-date=15 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus |title=GCoT 2.2 Masterplan |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GCoT_2.2_Masterplan_Marcus_Busby.jpg |website=Wikimedia Commons |date=April 2025 |access-date=15 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus |title=A Garden City of Today v2.0 |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/230228252/A-Garden-City-of-Today-v2-0 |website=Scribd |date=18 June 2014 |access-date=14 April 2025}}

{{Cite tweet |user=FractalCities |number=511854338223128576 |date=16 September 2014 |title=GCoT V2.0 Diagram via Tweet |url=https://x.com/FractalCities/status/511854338223128576/photo/1}}

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus |title=GCoT Masterplan (v1) |url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbusby/14912862604 |website=Flickr |date=14 October 2014 |access-date=14 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus |title=The GCoT Model: A Complex Systems Model for Settlement Design, Planning, Adaptation |url=https://www.academia.edu/24779851/The_GCoT_Model |website=Academia.edu |date=2015 |access-date=14 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Busby |first=Marcus |title=GCoT Presented as a 15-minute City |url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbusby/51343318258 |website=Flickr |date=29 July 2021 |access-date=14 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |title=Defining the 15-minute City |url=https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/08/defining-15-minute-city |website=Congress for the New Urbanism |date=8 February 2021 |access-date=14 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Thorpe |first=David |title=Webinar Round-up: What Makes a Smart City? |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150422023131/http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/david-thorpe/1065166/webinar-round-what-makes-smart-city |website=Sustainable Cities Collective (archived) |date=16 April 2015 |access-date=15 April 2025}}

{{Cite web |last=Thorpe |first=David |title=Webinar Round-up: What Makes a Smart City? |url=https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/webinar-round-what-makes-smart-city/1065166/ |website=Smart Cities Dive |date=16 April 2015 |access-date=15 April 2025}}

I deleted the long and arbitrary list of further reading. Although WP:ELNO was written for web links, the principle applies equally here:

{{Blockquote|

one should generally avoid providing external links to:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page,

}}

So I will do that next. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Full approval. Without clear inclusion criteria and annotations, these lists provide nothing of value. The best sources should already be in the "Works cited" anyways. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. So just to follow the process, here they are:

:::* {{cite book |last=Franqueville |first=Pierre |editor-last=Perrin |editor-first=Georges |chapter=La bibliothèque dans la ville : du chrono-urbanisme à la chrono-bibliothéconomie |date=2014 |url= https://books.openedition.org/pressesenssib/3284|title=Ouvrir plus, ouvrir mieux: un défi pour les bibliothèques |pages=75–85 |publisher=Presses de l'enssib |doi=10.4000/books.pressesenssib.3284 |isbn=979-10-91281-39-3 |language=fr}}

:::* {{ cite web | url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/ | title=The 15-minute city is a dead end — cities must be places of opportunity for everyone | last=Glaeser | first=Edward | author-link=Edward Glaeser | date=2021-05-28 | website=Blogs.lse.ac.uk |publisher=London School of Economics and Political Science |department=The future of cities }}

:::* {{cite magazine |magazine=On Common Ground |url=https://www.nar.realtor/on-common-ground/transportation-in-the-15-minute-city |title=Transportation in the 15-Minute City {{!}} Making Pedestrians the Priority |publisher=National Association of Realtors |date=30 April 2021 |first=Joan |last=Mooney}}

:::* {{cite web |last=Moreno |first=Carlos |title=La ville du quart d'heure: pour un nouveau chrono-urbanisme |url=https://www.latribune.fr/regions/smart-cities/la-tribune-de-carlos-moreno/la-ville-du-quart-d-heure-pour-un-nouveau-chrono-urbanisme-604358.html |website=La Tribune |date=5 October 2016 |language=fr}}

:::* {{cite book |last1=Moreno |first1=Carlos |title=15-Minute City: A Solution to Saving Our Time and Our Planet |date=2024 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9781394308774}}

:::* {{Cite web |title=My Portland Plan: What Makes a Neighborhood Complete? |date=n.d. |url=https://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/?a=437441 |website=Portlandonline.com}}

:::* {{Cite news |last=Reid |first=Carlton |title=Every Street In Paris To Be Cycle-Friendly By 2024, Promises Mayor |date=21 Jan 2020 |website=Forbes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/01/21/phasing-out-cars-key-to-paris-mayors-plans-for-15-minute-city/}}

:::* {{cite web |last1=Waldman |first1=Scott |title=A New Climate Conspiracy Theory Claims Traffic Control Is an Attack on Freedom |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-climate-conspiracy-theory-claims-traffic-control-is-an-attack-on-freedom/ |website=Scientific American |agency=E&E News |date=19 July 2023}}

:::* {{Cite news |last=Willsher |first=Kim |date=7 February 2020 |title=Paris mayor unveils '15-minute city' plan in re-election campaign |work=The Guardian |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/paris-mayor-unveils-15-minute-city-plan-in-re-election-campaign}}

::That was it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this was appropriate. I suggest evaluating the items individually, in light of the advice in WP:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading. For example, the latter page discourages non-English sources, but I think it would encourage the 2024 Moreno book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::There is no policy at present that says you have to do this but I for one would be very happy to list books that are supported by citing a review in a reliable source that says that the book has merit. Otherwise how do we decide which merits inclusion and which does not? Where is the peer review that applies to everything else on Wikipedia? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Back in the day, we called it "source-based research", and we valued it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Still do and still do.

::::But isn't that the fundamental principle that underpins Wikipedia? That we start from the source, read and understand it, summarise it into the article and cite the source. In a text book, "further reading" implies that the author has themself read and evaluated the book and considers it to be of particular value to readers who wish to pursue an aspect in more detail. In Wikipedia, editors aren't supposed to express such opinions but only to reflect consensus or at least to report the positions of notable individuals. So my opinion on what visitors should read is essentially worthless and a form of WP:OR. If they want to know which books exist about the concept, there are many search engines. If they want to know which of them are worth reading, then start from a review in a RS. Not here. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, source-based research is the step before the "read and understand it, summarize it into the article" part. Source-based research is when you are searching for sources, not when you're already editing the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Maybe I'm being naive but I rather assumed that before going anywhere near an article, an editor would have identified relevant sources and noted the information therein. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The process of "identifying relevant sources" is "source-based research". This process of identifying relevant sources, determining whether they're reliable, figuring out practical things (such as whether you have access to them), and so forth, is a highly desirable activity for editors to engage in.

:::::::Do you agree with me so far? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But when I identify [what I consider to be] a "relevant source", I digest it and summarise [what I consider to be] the salient points, then write the article (or add to the article), citing those sources. My judgement is now out there for fellow editors to review, amend, revert, challenge. Did I cherry-pick my sources? Did I cite selectively? Is the source actually any good? (WP:MEDRS takes a very hard line on that one, and quite right too.) But when I put my favoured authors into Further Reading, there is no equivalent (at present) of WP:ELNO or WP:ELBURDEN that can be relied upon as a basis to challenge that addition. Anyway, that point is an aspect of 'principles' point that is being discussed elsewhere (as noted below)--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::ELBURDEN is just WP:ONUS for the ==External links== section. You already have a policy(!) that "can be relied upon as a basis to challenge that addition", so you don't need to try to twist the WP:EL guideline into service here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

So back to the question of which material merits a place in "Further reading". At your talk page, you argue that I should self-revert my deletion of Edward Glaeser's blog post on the LSE website. So let's have a look. Glaeser is an economist, with no expertise in urban studies{{snd}}and it shows. As one commentator puts it well:

{{blockquote|This article is a strange misunderstanding of the 15-minute city (assuming the entire time that it means segregated neighborhoods, which it certainly does not), incorrectly cites others work (in the link to Chetty’s work he did not find that children growing up in cities were less mobile, he found that there was less mobility in the Deep South and parts of the Midwest), and confuses telecommuting with the 15-minute city.|author=Tom Courtright}}

Another (copy-edited) is less eloquent but identifies Glaeser's unconscious assumptions:

{{blockquote|This is a bizarre article that fails to understand even the basic tenets of urban design, and for ‘rich, poor, black and white’ people to properly live in a place, there has to be basic amenities within walking distance. This has existed as long as people have existed (before cars). Most american cities are a failure of design with housing, work, and retail/commercial separated by distances [that] only cars can manage, forcing people on lower income to put more money into having a necessary car than anything else. This has created the low income ghettoisation of american suburbs as much as it has created the wealthy socially myopic gated communities.|author=Alexander Riches}}

Earlier I asked: if it is that good, why isn't cited? I think the obvious answer is that it wouldn't be cited because it isn't good enough. The author is not a subject expert. His deductions are founded on a very limited American experience that do not scale worldwide. The structural problems of American cities are well known and will be very difficult to solve. A 15-minute objective is probably not deliverable in most of them. But that tells you a lot more about the problems of America than it does about the 15-minute city concept. So if it is not good enough to be cited in the article, then how can we recommend it as further reading? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Let's set this aside for a moment, because there's another step in this process. Imagine that you have identified [what you consider to be] many "relevant sources", through the process of source-based research. You've found ten books that all look like they would be excellent sources for writing the article.

:When you have written most of the article, you discover that you only needed to cite six of them. The unused ones are just as good as the used ones. Should you:

:* cite six and discard four?

:* WP:OVERCITE a few things, so you can cite all ten at least once?

:* cite six and put the other four in ==Further reading==?

:Of more immediately relevance: Do you think that we (the people writing guidelines) should ban you (the editor writing the specific article in question) from making the choice about what to do here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::You remind me of the student who decides that they have gone to the trouble of reading all these books and they £$%^*-well want credit for effort.

::But in your hypothetical case, I determine which text has in my opinion done the best research work, which has reached solid evidence-based conclusions. That's the one I cite. The key point is that other editors can see my workings and can (and do) peer-review my work. But let's say there were other books that I might equally have used: the place for them is the talk page, with a note for fellow editors (not readers) that I found these texts informative but as they didn't add anything new, I didn't use them{{snd}} but others may do so. "For others to mine" is the introduction I like to use, though it is a rare event. The exception I would make is for material that is cited heavily by the sources used but are not themselves valid as citations: the Jan Meeus algorithms book is an excellent example.

::There is another exception that I do but don't like doing. If, in the course of editing, I find works listed in the bibliography but aren't actually cited, I've moved them down to a "further reading" section. It is far from ideal but at least it goes some way to sorting the wheat from the chaff. There have been a few occasions recently where the further reading list was longer than the citations list and that to me shows laziness or incompetence. Until we have a FRNO or FRBURDEN, we have to put up with such dross{{snd}} although I've discarded obvious promo entries when I spot them.

::Am I as rigorous and conscientious all the time as the above might suggest? Of course not, but it is the standard I aim for. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So you would choose to cite one and hide the rest from readers. Why? You've already vetted them. You've already determined that they're worthwhile. And perhaps the reader can't get a copy of the book you cited, but would be able to get a copy of one of the others in your list. How does the reader benefit from you hiding the other sources?

:::You don't need a "FRNO" or "FRBURDEN", because you already have WP:ONUS. I don't understand why you keep banging on about that. Do you understand that you're effectively saying "It's not good enough to have an actual core content policy that says anyone can remove anything that doesn't have a consensus in favor of its inclusion; instead, I need a mere guideline that says that!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why isn't Glaser cited in the article? I tried to include it here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15-minute_city&diff=1187004745&oldid=1186985093] but editors Sangdeboeuf and Acroterion (and now apparently YOU) don't want to believe science when it conflicts with your pre-existing beliefs that someone with "expertise in urban studies" knows how cities MORALLY SHOULD be constructed rather than economists famous for studying the how cities ACTUALLY WORK and the CONSEQUENCES of urban planning and can thereby give their EXPERT opinions just like the urban studies people give their OPINIONS.

:Glaser IS a subject expert; its just that the "urban planners" who generate and justify zoning codes don't WANT to believe that THEY are the cause of most of America's housing issues, and so of course the entire field will attack Glaser. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::And the "commentators" quoted above appear to be random people on the internet who posted comments at the end of the blog post. The second one quoted above apparently believes that farmers and other rural residents don't live "properly". It's not serious criticism or evidence that the field of urban planning is attacking Glaeser. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::An ad hominem attack is the last resort when logic fails. The "two random people" (and yes, they are random people, so just like you and me!) make very salient criticisms, so if you can find fault with their logic, let's see it. Glaser's OpEd (for that is all it is) shows that he may well know that American cities work badly (although his citation would be tagged as {{tl|failed verification}} if it were in a WP article) and then reaches the stunning conclusion that nowhere else can be planned sensibly{{snd}} or more honestly, not planned nonsensically to favour motor traffic. And much of his commentary is about telecommuting and working from home, not about 15-minute cities. I hadn't seen {{u|Sangdeboeuf}} and {{u|Acroterion}}'s earlier assessments but I am pleased that they concur.

:::"The field of urban planning" is not attacking Glaser: WhatamIdoing asked me to justify why the OpEd should not be reinstated as "further reading" (though not in External Links, where it more properly might have gone but for the clearer guidelines there) and I responded with my analysis of why it is not good enough.

:::The art (not science) of Economics is about management of scarce resources and often irresolvable conflicts of value: these certainly apply here and Glaser is eminently qualified to evaluate those issues. But that is not what he has done here. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So you started this whole thread because you want to make a new policy for editors to follow, but here you think it is appropriate for you to NOT follow policy: Using comments from random commentors and YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT (that is called WP:OR) to evaluate whether those commentators' opinions are "valid" (agree with your opinion), as your justification of rejecting Glaser's opinion as a valid link, even though the larger Economic community sees him as a respected authority on that subject.

::::Why did you waste all of our time with your propositions here if this is the way you intent to edit? You just want to make rules for OTHERS to follow?

::::And now you deny that Economics : "Economics (/ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌiːkə-/)[1][2] is a social science" is a science? {{tpq|The art (not science) of Economics}}. How about astrology, is that a science, according to you? And is astronomy an art? ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How about Climatology? Is that an art? ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::JMF, I already gave you an example of the nonsense in the reader comments that you copied here. One of them says "for ‘rich, poor, black and white’ people to properly live in a place, there has to be basic amenities within walking distance". Do you know who doesn't "live in a place" with "basic amenities within walking distance"? Anybody who lives in a rural area. Your chosen reader comment says that farmers and other rural residents can't possibly be living "properly". I suspect that they would disagree strongly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Avatar317}} I don't think anyone here is proposing how cities {{tq|morally should}} be designed. Personalized accusations like that plus all-caps yelling about your personal beef with the field of urban planning are not helping your case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sangdebouef, I think that how cities morally should be designed is kind of the point of the article's subject. Wikipedia editors aren't proposing it, but the sources are, including some patently unreliable ones that JMF copied above ("Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources", says WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|... including some patently unreliable ones that JMF copied above ...}} Total red herring. Did I suggest for a moment that we would cite those comments? I quoted them here at the talk page because they give a reasoned analysis of the OpEd, with the same status and validity as they would have had they been written here by wikipedia editors. In exactly the same way and for the same reason, neither your observations nor mine would ever make it into the article. BUT that does not invalidate their challenges to the quality of the Glaser OpEd: either they are well founded or they are not. The challenger's identity is incidental, just as yours or mine is.

:::::::As for how cities "morally should be designed", I see no such wp:SOAPBOX or WP:ADVOCACY in the article. It describes the concept and relates the arguments for and against it. True, it does not give equal time to silly conspiracy theories about "people being restricted to ghettos". It does not get sidetracked by irrelevancies like low traffic neighbourhoods and School Streets, nor should it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::They don't give a well-informed analysis. For example, the first says that "in the link to Chetty’s work he did not find that children growing up in cities were less mobile", but:

::::::::* The blog post says "children who grow up in cities end up doing much worse as adults than children who grew up outside them", not that they're "less mobile" (downward mobility is still social mobility).

::::::::* The commenter assumed this statement summarized #4 in the linked source, but I think the "Baltimore City" example (#8) is what's actually being referred to (and IMO overgeneralized from, but I didn't read the source that is behind the simple summary).

::::::::This same commenter claims the blog post "confuses telecommuting with the 15-minute city", with no evidence. In fact, the blog post gives about as much space – which is not much – to telecommuting as this Wikipedia article, and the blog post specifically names multiple examples of non-telecommuting aspects of the 15-minute city model.

::::::::The same commenter says that this model won't result in "segregated" neighborhoods, but gives no information about how a neighborhood that can realistically support one grocery store is going to be all things to all residents. Why wouldn't Asian people prefer the neighborhood with an Asian grocery store? Why wouldn't Black people prefer the neighborhood with hairdressers that are used to handling their hair? Why wouldn't people from a minority religion prefer the neighborhood with has a church/temple/mosque for their religion? Why wouldn't low-income parents prefer the neighborhood with the free after-school childcare program? Tom doesn't seem to have thought about any of that; he just dismisses segregation and resident preferences as a problem that isn't part of the model, and therefore isn't a factor that can affect the model.

::::::::I think the fact that these commenters are missing basic facts is what invalidates their challenges to the quality of the Glaser post. This is not "reasoned analysis"; this is somebody engaging in a tis/tisn't kind of argument, while providing zero evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::1) Sorry for the confusion I caused when I WRONGLY ASSUMED that the comments posted by JMF were from urban planning academics who had written their own rebuttals to Glaser's post, which is why I accused the field of urban planning of being against him. My bad. - Thank you, WhatamIdoing, for pointing out where those comments came from.

::::::2) Exactly as WhatamIdoing also said, the sources (not me) are proposing that a 15-minute-city is "morally better" - some magical utopian concept withOUT any proof that this works better, or FOR WHOM it works better. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

As this discussion is going nowhere very slowly and it is obvious that there is not going to be a consensus, and that (per discussion referenced below there is no current policy like WP:ELNO that applies to "Further reading" to justify my deletion, I have reverted to status quo ante and reinstated the list, albeit organised more conventionally. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Did you intend to put the 300-page-long Moreno book in ==External links==? That isn't the "conventional" organization.

:External links also don't conventionally have the formatting you used, and we "conventionally" avoid non-English links per WP:NONENGEL.

:The fact that your choice breaks with so many of the conventions, and your persistent but (to me) inexplicable belief that WP:ONUS and WP:Consensus don't apply to ==Further reading==, makes me wonder whether this is a two-step exercise in gaming the system: Today, you change the section heading; tomorrow, you blank everything and claim that WP:ELBURDEN means no one can put any of it back.

:So I ask: If everything in ELNO were applied, what would you actually remove? Not the 300-page-long book, since that is far more than WP:ELNO#EL1 cares about, and nothing else in ELNO could apply to a dead-tree book. Probably not the opinion pieces. Maybe some of the news outlets? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::My intention was to do what should have been done in the first place: put external links in an ==External links== section where they belong. Of course I might have gone further and applied the strictures that (strangely) apply to ELs but not FRs, but I my good faith might be questioned even further. BTW, WP:NONENGEL only says that the English-language version is strongly preferred, not required.

::I will move Moreno up into FR, it was an oversight. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I've removed one of the news articles that was used as a source. It isn't so impressive as to be worth duplicating it.

:::I doubt that the article Moreno wrote for the French media outlet is worth keeping in either FR or EL sections. It probably doesn't cover anything that isn't in the book, and few of our readers will be interested in/able to read a French-language source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal: expand the scope of ELNO to include "Further reading" about the principle of how "Further reading" sections should be managed, which cites this article as a case study. Please contribute there (on the general principle only. Please contribute above if you want to argue to case for any of the books above to be restored.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)