Here's Why Engineeering City Life from the Top Down is a Terrible Idea

Surveillance cameras plastered all over neighbourhoods, complicated and burdensome traffic rules, heavy restrictions on the circulation of vehicles, "15 minute cities" come hell or high water. These are all watchwords of an emerging philosophy of city planning whose authors appear to view citizens as pawns in a master plan, or as children to be herded around until they "get with the programme." I am reminded of a comment by a town councillor in my neighbourhood in Spain to the effect that video surveillance cameras are not “the sort of thing” that ordinary citizens should be deciding on.

*Click here to upgrade to a paid subscription and gain access to subscriber-exclusive content.

The idea of the “15 minute city” seems to be catching on, with various protypes of self-contained, walkable, bike-friendly neighbourhoods being proposed in places like Melbourne, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Oxford, Bristol, Canterbury and Sheffield. In theory, it means that a city or town is made up of neighbourhoods structured in such a way that the most important amenities and shops are within a 15 or 20 minute walking or biking distance from one’s home, often combined with the idea of more park space and lower levels of traffic. But, as the saying go, “the devil is in the detail.”

Here is one description of the “15 minute city” as implemented or planned for Barcelona:

The Spanish city of Barcelona has been experimenting with so-called Superilles or super districts. The concept takes several housing blocks and puts them into a super block. Only residents or delivery services have access with cars and the maximum speed limit is 10 kilometers (6 miles) an hour. Many streets are blocked for cars and are instead being used in different ways. Former parking lots have been given over to trees, vegetables and flowers, and are now places where children can play and people can while away their time on benches in the shade.

The merits of this sort of experiment depend on how exactly the plan is implemented, and in what spirit. For example, what level of public consultation is involved? How much major disruption does the plan cause to local businesses, and how are these disruptions being compensated in a sustainable way? Perhaps local residents welcome the “15 minute city” plan, and their needs are carefully weighed up by city authorities. But given the less than stellar democratic pedigree of city planners (and that is putting it kindly), and the rather stark precedents of local and national lockdowns, we have good reason to fear that these plans will be imposed unilaterally and with minimal buy-in from the very citizens whose neighbourhoods are being rearranged.

To the extent that the “15 minute city” is imposed in this way, it is riddled with problems, such as the abrogation of citizens’ freedom of movement, enhanced forms of surveillance of citizens’ movements, the alienation of large sections of the citizen body from public authorities, and substantial harms to local businesses.

“Expert” city planners who see their role as that of leading citizens toward a more enlightened way of life are not averse to running some sort of poll to give a democratic veneer to their projects. But ultimately, in his heart of hearts, the social engineer thinks quite poorly of his fellow citizens. It is the "experts," those clever people who understand the needs of communities better than the communities themselves, who must think up the best way to organise city life. Who else, if not they?

Who else indeed? You might think that the people who actually make up the warp and woof of the city, the citizens themselves, might have something valuable to contribute to the governance of their own common life. Indeed, you might even think that citizens have a right to consent to any major transformation of their way of life. But social engineers are too enamoured with their own intelligence and "innovativeness" to consider the essential role citizens should be playing in shaping and consenting to the city planning process.

The expert who positions himself above the situated practical knowledge of the citizen body makes two major mistakes: first, he overlooks the value of personal and political freedom, putting in its place what he views as “benign expertocracy.”

Second, he mistakenly equates technical and theoretical knowledge with practical know-how or prudence. City planning requires prudence, and this requires a rounded view of all the relevant facts, something that is impossible to come by without seriously consulting credible representatives of implicated groups.

If you engage in city planning from an armchair position with no serious investigation of citizens' existing needs and preferences, or just a throwaway poll at best, then you may well ram through a lot of ideas that you and your chums think marvelous, such as road blockades and highly complicated traffic rules to reduce through traffic, strict and merciless carbon emission targets, 24 hour video surveillance cameras, omnipresent speed traps, and "15 minute cities" (however you understand that concept), only to find that you have chased away valuable traffic that businesses depended on, made travel and socialising difficult or impossible for some citizens, and sparked profound distrust and resentment in a large section of the citizenry.

So what's the alternative to a top-down, technocratic approach to city planning? For instance, what would a democratically-minded city planner think of the notion of the “15 minute city”?  It is not always clear what exactly is meant by a “15 minute city,” but let’s assume it means the aspiration to have amenities, whether cultural, recreational or educational, all in the same neighbourhood, incentivising citizens to hang out in that neighbourhood and to spend more time walking and less time in the car. Is there a democratic, participatory way to advance such an ideal?

Of course there is. For example, you might encourage or attract investment in new amenities in the neighbourhood, helping to create an athletic centre, a cultural coffeeshop, or a more vibrant downtown area. If you want to reduce traffic or reclaim green spaces, you engage in extensive consultation with the citizenry and with representatives of all major stakeholders, so that all of the relevant issues and tangible harms are properly ironed out before any project is given the green light.

With these sorts of consensual measures, you make it more attractive for citizens to spend time in their neighbourhood, and more attractive for non-locals to come visit. In this way, you don't need to resort to threats and intimidation to compel citizens to buy into your idea. If all of this is done in close consultation with citizens, you may very well have won yourself their loyalty, and some valuable political capital.

Compare this with what we have seen in some towns, with roaming speed traps, complicated traffic rules to collect fines from drivers who cannot make out the fine print of the rules, blockades impeding accessibility by car, cycle paths that make parking virtually impossible, and costly video surveillance to "keep citizens safe."

These sorts of measures create an adversarial and paternalistic relationship with citizens, who become disempowered and resentful as they watch their neighbourhoods being up-ended by overly zealous technocrats with seemingly no interest in the actual needs and preferences of their constituents.

If we want to avoid the steady advance of technocracy in our cities, towns, and neighbourhoods, then we have to take back our own streets. Not in the manner of an anarchist uprising, but in the manner of an engaged and responsible citizenry that do what they can to inject new energy and vibrancy into their local areas, and will not stand idly by while their political representatives impose dystopian schemes blind to local needs and values.