What the 15-minute ideal misses about the future of cities

COMMENT The idea of the 15-minute city pre-dates the pandemic but has gained traction in the wake of it. Popularised by French academic Carlos Moreno, it idealises the ability to satisfy most wants and needs within a short distance of home. Rather than promoting traditional suburbanisation, the concept holds that many of the activities of life – working, shopping, dining, exercising, learning – should be able to be accomplished within neighbourhoods where no point is more than 15 minutes away by foot or bike. It is true that many cities – particularly those which are geographically constrained, rapidly expanding or driven by government policy – integrate “live, work and play” into mixed-use areas. But in practice, most precincts specialise in one or two of these activities. This may be due to historic, cultural, or simply practical reasons. The limitations of the 15-minute ideal start to show when considering activities that benefit the most from bringing a large, critical mass of diverse people together. For instance, can you really support high-quality live drama, music and professional sport entirely within the confines of a single 15-minute city? Or can every 15-minute city support a truly diverse range of cuisines and experiences, and specialised healthcare and advanced education? Within any one existing or imagined 15-minute city, it’s hard to fathom achieving the scale possible to make all types of face-to-face activities work; there are simply not enough people with the same interests or needs. In the zone To support the full range of urban offerings, we need the metropolitan scale typical of a major city region, along with a degree of intraurban travel – in other words, commuting. But in a world where physical and virtual space are in intense competition, the traditional bedroom suburb and the commuter city centre must change. For physical places to capture their fair share of activity despite the cost, in both money and time, of commuting, they must bring something special to the table. Let’s start with areas once called suburbs. To thrive, they will have to become more like 15-minute cities. The term we’ve been applying at LaSalle to these areas is liveable zones. With attractive housing, strong schools and open spaces, these areas have the whole spectrum of amenities needed for daily living. Illustrative examples include urban villages like Wimbledon, as well as satellite cities like Milton Keynes. These will thrive as technology allows more people to spend more time at or close to home. Parts of these liveable zones can be focal points for local activity. But because these areas face practical limitations in terms of amenities, infrastructure, and catchment size, another type of place is needed to facilitate the more rarefied forms of in-person interaction and experience. These places, which might traditionally be called city centres or downtowns, but which we call confluence zones, are rich in amenities, including bars, restaurants, museums and other uses that benefit from in-person experience. Investors in confluence zones must remain creative in attracting the consumers and workers to their properties, especially as economies reopen. Staff going back to the office will demand modern workplaces with strong environmental credentials that promote employee welfare. Extra provision needs to be made for engagement and inspiration to offset the challenges associated with commuting and congestion. There is a third type of zone. Adjacent zones act as overflow areas for both confluence and liveable zones; their main source of value is proximity to other areas. They may house uses such as urban logistics, affordable housing, retail parks and self-storage centres. Investors will also target these zones should they anticipate a gentrification that leads to its transformation into a liveable or confluence zone. But these areas will be most susceptible to market share shifts toward virtual ways of interacting, rendering offices in adjacent zones particularly at risk. New thinking We’re proposing a new way to think about how we use cities that moves beyond traditional concepts like suburbs and downtowns. While the 15-minute city is too sub-scale to realise the full benefits of urban agglomeration, an old model of peripheral to central commuting fails to acknowledge the realities of an increasingly hybrid world that blends in-person and virtual interaction. Specifically, some areas tend to specialise in facilitating in-person collaboration, whereas others focus on home life. For real estate investors and developers, factoring in these considerations will be critical when determining whether assets are economically viable. Understanding the suitability of an asset type and tenant’s core activity in relation to the zone they are in, can help identify investment and divestment opportunities, as well as shape asset management strategies. Brian Klinksiek is head of European research and global portfolio strategies at LaSalle Photo: Briam Cute from Pixabay