15-Minute Cities: What a Dream?

Imagine a city where everything you need: work, groceries, healthcare, schools, and cafés, is just a short walk or bike ride away.
This is the vision behind the 15-minute city, an urban model that has captured imaginations across the world, promising to reshape how we live, move, and connect.

The idea sounds simple, even obvious. Yet as cities begin to invest in hyper-local living, a deeper question emerges:

Does geospatial data support the promise of fully self-sufficient neighborhoods, or does it reveal contradictions hidden within the vision itself?

To answer this, we must move beyond ideals and examine how cities actually function.

The Appeal and Assumptions of the 15-Minute City

The 15-minute city promises a life organized by proximity.
Rather than commuting long distances or relying heavily on cars, residents would access daily needs within a short radius. Advocates argue that this approach reduces traffic, lowers emissions, strengthens communities, and improves quality of life.

Cities like Paris, Melbourne, and Bogotá have embraced the model, aiming to redesign neighborhoods around mixed-use zoning, active transportation, and decentralized service delivery.

The concept rests on powerful assumptions:

• It assumes that urban residents have diverse but locally satisfiable needs.

• It assumes that neighborhoods can be balanced ecosystems of housing, work, education, healthcare, and leisure.

• It assumes that shrinking the distance between home and service automatically leads to greater equity and sustainability.

At first glance, it is hard to argue with these aspirations.
Who would not want a city where life is closer, healthier, and less stressful?

Yet real urban life is rarely so tidy.
The challenge lies not in the desire for proximity, but in whether proximity alone can meet the complexity and diversity of modern urban needs.

What the Data Reveals About Urban Proximity

When we turn to geospatial data, a more complicated story unfolds.

First, physical proximity does not guarantee functional accessibility. A grocery store might be close by, but unaffordable or culturally irrelevant to nearby residents. A small clinic might technically exist within walking distance, but lack specialized care. Geospatial data consistently shows that service deserts persist even within densely built environments.

Second, inequality shapes access to local services. Central urban areas often approximate the 15-minute ideal for affluent residents. Meanwhile, lower-income neighborhoods frequently face longer travel times to access quality healthcare, education, or stable employment. Far from leveling opportunity, proximity without investment risks reinforcing existing divides.

Third, cities are inherently networked and specialized. People do not only live and work within their neighborhoods. They travel across cities for jobs, cultural events, education, and personal ties. Even in cities designed with local living in mind, data shows that regional mobility remains essential for economic opportunity and social dynamism.

Fourth, no neighborhood can function as a self-contained system. Urban economies depend on clusters of specialized institutions: universities, research hospitals, industrial hubs, arts districts. These ecosystems thrive precisely because they draw people and resources across distances. The dream of complete neighborhood self-sufficiency risks isolating communities rather than empowering them.

In short, geospatial evidence supports the desire for more accessible, livable neighborhoods. But it also cautions against imagining that proximity alone can solve deeper structural inequalities or replace the diverse flows that make cities vibrant.

Rethinking the 15-Minute City for a Complex Urban Future

Rather than abandoning the 15-minute city model, we should rethink it as a flexible strategy, not a rigid blueprint.

First, proximity must be framed as opportunity, not restriction.
The goal is to give residents the option to meet daily needs locally, without assuming they should never travel beyond their immediate neighborhoods.

Second, addressing spatial inequality must be a priority.
Investments should focus on areas historically underserved, expanding access to essential services rather than concentrating amenities only in wealthier districts. Without this, the 15-minute city risks becoming a story of exclusion rather than empowerment.

Third, urban design must balance local living with regional connectivity.
Short, active trips for daily errands and services should be made easier. At the same time, cities must also maintain strong transportation networks that allow for regional mobility, economic collaboration, and cultural exchange.

Fourth, data must guide both design and evaluation.
Cities should use dynamic spatial analysis, community-driven data collection, and equity-focused audits to ensure that the 15-minute vision adapts to real urban conditions rather than remaining an abstract ideal.
The best urban futures will embrace complexity, support choice, and weave together local and regional layers of connection.