City planning documents are usually only of interest to bureaucrats, developers wondering how the city will make their lives difficult, NIMBYs looking for ways to halt development, and retirees with too much time on their hands. But a planning document from the City of Edmonton a few years ago managed to take on a life of its own.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
The backlash to Edmonton’s “City Plan” shows that Canadians are finally beginning to recognize that municipalities are centrally planned bureaucracies striving to seize social control over businesses and residents. But many of its opponents are doing the debate a disservice by peddling falsehoods, such as suggesting that the government wants to lock up residents in their own neighborhoods.
The controversy revolves around City Hall’s long-term plan to make Edmonton a “15-minute city” when the population reaches 2 million — about double what it is today. While it will initially focus on widening sidewalks and building pathways to “encourage walking,” as Mayor Amarjeet Sohi put it, the ultimate goal is for every Edmontonian to have most services within a 15-minute walk, can be reached by bike or by public transport transit.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I live within a 15 minute walk to the grocery store, my children’s school, restaurants and bars, dentist and doctor’s offices and a host of other amenities. I honestly wouldn’t want it any other way. But I admit it’s not for everyone. In fact, one of the perks of living in one of Alberta’s sprawling metropolitan areas is that it’s relatively inexpensive to purchase a large home in a quiet area.
The attempt to turn Edmonton into Manhattan was bound to be rejected. But as seems to be the norm these days, the opposition has been crushed.
A video on TikTok linked the plan to a “digital currency” that “they” can turn on and off, and an “invisible line” designed to “give you the illusion of freedom.” Another video shows a city planner
be molested by a man convinced the government plans to barricade him in his neighborhood. A flyer for a protest claimed that citizens will be barred from “going to any area more than 15 minutes from you” and that the government will monitor your “carbon footprint”. All of this is obviously wrong.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
In fact, the “City Plan” amounts to little more than the goal of having 50 percent of new developments in existing neighborhoods rather than in new subdivisions, by allowing more mid-rise and high-rise buildings in certain boroughs and more mixed-use zoning to allow for themselves Businesses can set up in residential areas. All of this is needed in this country given the high cost of housing and the influx of new immigrants. It’s true that Edmonton, as Alberta’s smaller city (go Flames!), has lower real estate prices than other major centers, but that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have value, especially as it continues to expand.
Other criticisms leveled at 15-minute cities, while often misleading and conspiratorial, are not entirely untrue.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Controversial Calgary businessman W. Brett Wilson recently came under fire for a
color coded map that vehicles are not allowed to travel between zones, even though it was not a map of Alberta’s capital. The image was somewhat misleading because it had the text “Edmonton 15 Minute Cities” superimposed on it and was accompanied by a tweet referring to “Edmonton-based eco-alarmists,” though everyone who bothered to read it , could see that it was clearly marked as ” Canterbury” and indicated the names of British motorways.
Also,
Jordan Peterson retweeted a post from late December showing maps of Canterbury and Oxford, UK, and spreading conspiracy theories from the World Economic Forum. Peterson claimed that “idiot tyrannical bureaucrats” decide “where you can ‘drive'” and that it was “part of a well-documented plan”. Which isn’t entirely wrong.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Canterbury and Oxford both have plans to minimize congestion through traffic filters linked at least tangentially to their 15-minute city maps. In a statement, Oxford City Council reassured the public that “traffic filters are not physical barriers of any kind,” but went on to say that if “a vehicle drives through the filter at certain times of the day… you will be fined.” one would say: “Nothing prevents you from parking here, but if you do, we will give you a ticket.”
The filters will not prevent people from moving through the city as buses and bicycles can pass through and cars can use alternative routes. They’re also not entirely dissimilar to London’s congestion charge for vehicles entering the city center, although using fines instead of charges seems more draconian.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
However, it is no exaggeration to say that these measures are an attempt at social engineering – Oxfordshire County Council specifically states that one of its aims is to “reduce unnecessary private vehicle journeys and encourage walking, cycling, public and shared transport to Making the natural first choice.” Nor is it foolish to suggest that this is part of a war on cars being waged by governments around the world and backed by climate alarmists in the scientific community.
In a recent report by the University of California’s Climate and Community Project, Davis argues that simply forcing everyone to buy electric vehicles is not enough to combat climate change, as Canada’s liberal government is doing right now. That would create too much demand for the lithium used in batteries, leading to “large-scale mining” and all the associated “social and environmental damage.”
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Instead, the authors advocate policies to increase suburban density and reduce “dependence on private vehicles,” such as: Such as adding more bike lanes, subsidizing bicycles, e-bikes, and bike parts, eliminating street parking, charging large vehicles, and using zoning laws to create walkable neighborhoods.
By framing an otherwise sensible congestion and multi-use zoning policy as an exercise in social engineering, and pairing it with a clear-cut anti-auto agenda, politicians are alienating a sizeable segment of the population. But the reality is that there is nothing new about this.
Recommended by the editors
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
In fact, the reason that many parts of Canada’s major cities are not densely populated is that municipalities have long used zoning laws to mandate single-family homes in certain areas, ban rental suites, and impose height restrictions on new condos. We’re certainly all familiar with roads being dug up to accommodate bike lanes, which are rarely used given Canada’s cold temperatures and poor road conditions for most of the year. And municipalities in the past have deliberately blocked the expansion of inadequate roads to discourage car use.
Covering the 2008 Vancouver municipal election, I took part in a debate in which candidates from all three major parties opposed the province’s plans to expand roads and bridges and advocated leaving a lane on the already congested Burrard Street Close the bridge to cyclists and pedestrians, although it was recognized that this would “create problems with motor traffic”. There was consensus that upgrading the roads would only serve to “bring more cars into the city” and that the government should instead look for “better ways to get people out of their cars”.
This ad has not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
In other words, while the term “15-minute cities” was only coined in 2016, local governments have been working towards similar goals for quite some time. In most cases, this has simply led to more congestion, leading to even more greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of constantly trying to control what can and cannot be built by fiat and fix problems caused by old zoning laws with new ones, cities would be better off simply abolishing most zoning restrictions, which likely serves the same goals of the increasing density and number of commercial services operating in many neighborhoods. Building more toll roads with private funds would also help reduce congestion and save taxpayers’ money without banning people from driving on roads their money bought and paid for.
That Canadians are finally understanding that municipalities are using zoning laws and transportation infrastructure to influence behavior and ensure cities develop from the top down, not the bottom up, is only good. But for heaven’s sake, folks, can’t we get to the point without resorting to dystopian conspiracies about modern-day ghetto confinement?
