This one has been flying around my #Facebook friends list. In and of itself, it's true. I have no argument with what it *says*. But there's a lot it's not saying, and I can't help but feel like it's designed to disparage the #15minuteCity concept by that omission.

First, the concept itself. The idea of the 15-minute city ("#15mC") is pretty simple: everything you need for your daily life should be within 15 minutes' #walk. Some definitions have "walk or #bicycle ride," but I think that drastically weakens the concept.

In other words, a healthy, able-bodied adult should be able to get to all the usual destinations in no more than a quarter of an hour, on foot. I would add to this that #children, the #elderly, and people of all ages with #disabilities should also be able to get where they're going via accessible #public #transit, in the same amount of time.

*All* the usual destinations. Which yes, means #grocery #stores, #restaurants, #movie #theaters, etc.—for people who #work there as well as the patrons. And every other kind of #workplace too. Of course you don't *have* to work or eat or shop close to home. But the option needs to be there, and the work has to be able to pay for all the rest.

That's *always* been part of the concept. If the work criterion is not met, you don't have a 15mC; you have a theme park, like the post says. Fair enough.

Yes, and? If you have a #house without a roof, you don't have a house, you have a collection of walls. If you have a plate without #food on it, you don't have a meal, you have #hunger. If you have a #legislature that can arbitrarily kick out its members for voicing their opinions, you don't have #liberty, you have #tyranny. Everyone understands this.

So if we agree that the 15mC is a good idea—I certainly think it is—then let's try to make it happen. This kind of sniping strikes me as less a valid critique and more an attempt to make the whole idea sound impossible.

Maybe that's not the intent, but it's sure how it comes across. Yeah ... don't do that.