Talk:15-minute city

Untitled

Hello! This is a stub that I'd like to add more detail to, including ongoing discussions of the concept during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Anne Hidalgo's plan in Paris. More information can be found on my user page. Jkolli (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oct 2021 - The article should likely be moved to "15-Minute City", as that appears to be the way that independent sources frequently refer to it. Calligraphically — Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

3/29 Edits and Organization

Hello! I'm glad to see that more people have taken an interest in this article since I first proposed edits. I reorganized the existing text into sections, removed uncited information, and added more information to sections from my sandbox. For my next steps, I plan to add more examples of implementations, specifically from Asia, and expand the implications and critiques section. I welcome any edits! Jkolli (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Great job on this article! I noticed how much you expanded the page with specific examples of models and city implementation studies, which I thought helped a lot in understanding the feasibility and reasoning behind different concepts behind the 15 minute city. Information is presented in a way that gives background and room for the reader to form an opinion. In terms of future edits, it would be great to see more links and images (specifically an image of what a 15 minute city plan may look like could be helpful in visualizing the design and accessibility). Additionally, you can edit the lead to provide more of a roadmap to your later sections. Also, revising your headings for the implementation and critique section to separate the two into their own sections would make your last two sections more clear in terms of the content being presented. Content-wise, an important thing to consider may be to draw connections or to contrast between the different city examples and models. It might be helpful to see a summary table of some of the similar or differing ideas for the models/ implementation plans. Heatherkong (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is super great! I agree it would be super cool to include diagrams or other information that could help readers visualize, as well as maybe expanding on the examples section (particularly the Melbourne section, and maybe any other cities you're aware of. I think the lead could also include more info about the origins of the 15-minute city as well. Otherwise, great work! Ebweav (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

This article is well-organized and really clear. The only things I would add to User: Heatherkong's list are adding an image or two, if possible, and maybe changing the wording of the phrase, "...polycentric city, where density is made pleasant, where proximity is vibrant and where social intensity is real." I am not sure if you define polycentric city anywhere else, but a link might be helpful, and I also thought "proximity and vibrant and social intensity is real" could use some shortening. That's it though. MBJAnderson (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Implementation Examples

Some of the examples cited of implementations do not seem to be explicitly related to the 15 minute city concept, but seem to simply be innovations in urban mobility, some in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the Bogotá section is entirely about cycling, and neither of the cited sources mention the "15 minute city" concept. Further, Bogotá had long been developing a cycle network. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

On closer reading, most of the examples are fine, it's just the Lagos example, which seems to be more about food access than walk-ability (which is cited as merely a side effect), and the Bogotá example, which is about urban mobility, but is not specifically identified as an implementation of the 15-minute city concept and appears too generic to merit inclusion here (considering the countless other cities that expanded cycling routes or closed streets to cars during the COVID-19 pandemic). I suggest those two be removed.Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Critiques" section.

Since I'm pulling out a big chunk of the page, I thought I'd explain why. "Critics point out that the creation of dense, walkable cores like a 15-minute neighborhood often leads to gentrification and displacement" is not in the source; the closest thing there is "Finally, high accessibility to certain areas and the creation of hyper proximity cores are usually accompanied by rising property values, causing either gentrification phenomena or the confinement of lower income households to periphery. Hence provisions in regard to affordable and rental housing, available to diverse individuals and households, are critical and should be an integral part of [fifteen-minute cities'] policies." The article says that improving cities in general can lead to gentrification unless policies are included to preserve affordability. This is different from "improving cities leads to gentrification and displacement".

"Further, price increases, like those associated with gentrification, could be harmful to marginalized groups like people with disabilities, forcing move-outs" isn't a reasonable summary of "The ‘15-Minute City’ Isn’t Made for Disabled Bodies", which focuses on the problem that price increases can make the city unaffordable, and improving the city can make it more attractive, which (in the absence of more homes for people to move into) will make it more expensive. This isn't an argument for keeping the city unwalkable and inaccessible, and it shouldn't be presented as one.

"Similarly, as the concept's origin is largely European, critics have argued that implementing the model could be colonialist and perpetuate harm to marginalized communities" is not a reasonable way to summarize Where the ‘15-Minute City’ Falls Short, which quotes Jay Pitter as saying "We've actually designed cities to create buffers between us across race and class specifically, and this proposal completely ignores a century of planning interventions that have actually concretized deep social divisions between people." The idea here is that it's harder to make American cities walkable and accessible than it is to make European cities that way; a few bike lanes alone won't cut it. This doesn't mean that walkability and accessibility are "colonialist".

Lastly, the idea that it's easier to implement a fifteen-minute city in an already-dense city is practically tautological, and doesn't qualify as a "critique". This doesn't leave anything, so I've removed the section entirely. grendel|khan 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, proposing an update to the criticism section, which is very descriptive at this point using too much references. Here is a more concise alternative keeping the main point:

"While many cities have implemented policies along the 15-minute city concept, disagreement remains over whether the model equally benefits residents. Arguments mainly point that pedestrian friendly neighborhood design may lead to gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents due to rising property values, if not accompinied by affordable housing provisions (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). "

For the second part, it could be like this:

"In addition, the 15-minute city concept is more feasible in cities with less urban sprawl, such as those in Europe. However, in Chengdu and Melbourne the concept has been implemented with the latter emphasizing the importance of public transit in expanding the radius of the 15-minute city, rather than walking or cycling."...

buti am not sure there is such a clear source in the literature (though the argument is solid) Fancyarchitect (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Repetitive additions and removals:

Revised: I have removed repetitive references to the "Isobenefit Proposal by D'Acci" as they are not relevant to the main topic of the article, which is the "15-minute city" concept. There is still a mention in the "Research Models" section, though I am unsure if it is appropriate there, as well.

The goal of the "15-minute city" article is to provide information on this widely adopted urban planning approach, not to present a comprehensive list of all proposals that include a 15-minute travel time or similar idea. There have been many such proposals dating back to the early 20th century, including those by Ebenezer Howard, Eb. Howard, CA. Doxiadis, and C.Rowe Additionally, 5-minute and 15-minute models have been widely used in thousands of research studies. However, including every single proposal in this article would detract from its focus and clarity. Let's work together to ensure that the content remains informative and relevant. Fancyarchitect (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Seven citations in first sentence. Seriously?

The definition is uncontroversial, it doesn't need multiple citations (xref MOS). Accordingly, I have moved all but one down to a new External links section. If anyone considers any of these especially important, then a new section is needed to reflect the points they make and it can be reclaimed to support it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that you state it's non-controversial, because I came to the talk page because I disagree with the notion that it's a "residential" concept. 15-minute neighborhoods are necessarily mixed-use...and I expect that the only excluded uses would likely be heavy industry. I'd propose removing the word "residential" from the definition. Rodneyr (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is the definition is uncontroversial. I acknowledge that the principle itself is disputed. If you believe that the word "residential" should be removed, you need to show that a consensus of expert opinion considers it irrelevant. Your opinion (and mine, of course) is of no significance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But your analysis makes sense. I haven't checked the citation to see if it actually says so, and don't have time now. Would you do it please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviation

"FMC" has been added. I prefer "10MC" as it makes iy easy to compare with eg "20MC". S C Cheese (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a reliable source for that abbreviation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

https://dutpartnership.eu/the-15-minute-city-transition-pathway-15mc/

They style it as "15mC" S C Cheese (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Changed in article, as above. S C Cheese (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring Parts

Hi all, the article starts to get pretty good. Here are some thoughts:

1.Texts should be less descriptive when citing authors. The field is new and many viewpoints are added every week. Instead of [author] suggests and proposes that [.......] , it is better to style text as [argument or opinion] (citation)

2.My suggestion is to restructure a little bit "limitations" and "criticism". The two terms are often overlapping but there is distinction between them: Limitations refer to situations where a theory cannot work properly. Criticism is more subjective, and is about situations that it would work, but in a harmfull (bad) way. That probably includes conspiracies views, as well. So, the sections could be re-arranged as:

Limitations:

While the theory has many potential benefits, including reducing car dependence and promoting walkability in urban areas, it also has limitations.

One limitation is the difficulty or impracticality of implementing the 15-minute city concept in established urban areas, where land use patterns and infrastructure are already in place. Additionally, the concept may not be feasible in areas with low population density, more urban sprawl or in low-income communities where transportation options are limited. However, it should be noted that cities like Chengdu and Melbourne have utilized the concept in order to curb urban sprawl and stress the importance of public transit in expanding the radius of the 15-minute city.

Furthermore, when the concept is applied as a literal spatial analysis research tool, it then refers to the use of an isochrone to express the radius of an area considered local. Isochrones have a long history of utilization in transportation planning and are constructed primarily using two variables: time and speed. However, the reliance on population-wide conventions, such as gait speed, to estimate the buffer zones of accessible areas may not accurately reflect the mobility capabilities of specific population groups, like the elderly. This may result in potential inaccuracies and fallacies in research models. In addition, depending too much on physically demanding mobility, could also exclude the physically disabled..

Criticism: While many cities have implemented policies along the 15-minute city concept, disagreement remains over whether the model will equally benefit residents of all social strata. Arguments mainly point that pedestrian friendly neighborhood design may lead to gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents or marginalized groups due to rising property values, especially if not accompinied by affordable housing provisions.

Conspiracy theories about the 15-minute concept theories have also flourished, including claims that the model will fine residents for leaving their home districts. British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher called 15-minute cities an "international socialist concept" during a debate in the UK Parliament in February 2023. Fancyarchitect (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I wholly agree of adding a "conspiracy theory" section to the article as it has grown more attention to the tinfoil hat crowd. The topic doesn't warrant its own page so having it here would be better suited. Grandtubetrains (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

20 April 2023

Thread retitled from "Emptiness of the subject / Misses the point".

The way the subject is presented seems to come from people who have never seen a X-minute city in their live. There are such cities literally everywhere across many countries, and it's been like that for thousands of years. I think the concept should redefined by contrasting *some* new big cities with *most* old cities. 2A01:E0A:909:95B0:C12F:53BB:C47B:6236 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal experiences. If there are such sources contrasting new and old "15-minute cities", feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent tagging

An IP editor has been tagging the conspiracy theory section with NPOV tags, seemingly objecting to the existence of the section, or maybe the description "conspiracy theory." I've protected the article to ensure that discussion occurs here rather than via tagging and edit summaries claiming that the NPOV policy demands that we do what the editor says without further question. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Defining alternate viewpoints or criticisms as "conspiracy theories" because they contradict your personal viewpoints is inherently in violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View standard. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.", "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (Personal attack removed) The article could easily be revised to be truly impartial as follows:

Conspiracy theories

In 2023, unfounded conspiracy theories criticism about the 15-minute concept began to flourish, which described the model as an instrument of government oppression. These claims are often part of or linked to other conspiracy theories that assert that Western governments seek to oppress their populations, such as QAnon, anti-vaccinationism or misinformation related to criticism of 5G technology. Proponents of the 15-minute concept, including Carlos Moreno, have received death threats.

Some conspiracy theorists critics conflate the 15-minute concept with the British low-traffic neighborhood approach, which includes license plate scanners in some implementations. This has led conspiracy theorists those critics to assert that the 15-minute model would fine residents for leaving their home districts, or that it would confine people in "open-air prisons". In a 2023 protest by some 2,000 demonstrators in Oxford, signs described 15-minute cities as "ghettos" and an instrument of "tyrannical control" by the World Economic Forum.

Canadian media personality Jordan Peterson has described 15-minute cities as a "perversion", linking them to the "Great Reset" conspiracy theory. British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher called 15-minute cities an "international socialist concept" during a February 2023 debate in the UK Parliament. QAnon supporters have claimed the February 2023 derailment of a train carrying hazardous chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio was part of a deliberate plot to force rural residents into 15-minute cities in order to restrict their personal freedom. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW I didn't demand that you, "do what the editor says without further question." I validly pointed out the violation of Wikipedia policy. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here and providing a detailed discussion, rather than just tag-bombing the article and picking out pieces of the NPOV policy in edit summaries. Discussion is required when you tag an article, just tagging is regarded as disruptive, and I semi-protected the article to ensure that you came here for an actual discussion.

NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe concepts in the same manner that a consensus of reliable sources does. Are you asserting that the references do not, or are you just objecting that Wikipedia is reporting discussions of a conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory? Do you dispute the references? Do you object to the section? It appears to me that you wish to describe the conspiracy theories as something else. What do you suggest, and is that supported by referencing? Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) The NPOV says:

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

This is the exact opposite of what you are doing. If you want to say that a source calls these criticisms "conspiracy theories", the text should read something along the lines of, "The New York Times [48] calls these claims, which they link to other ideas that assert that Western governments seek to oppress their populations, such as QAnon, anti-vaccinationism or "misinformation related to 5G technology", conspiracy theories". 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A less aggressive tone in your comments concerning your perception of the motivations of other editors would be appreciated.

In general, NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe something in accordance with the consensus of reliable sources, and doesn’t demand that it be watered down to imply that there is validity to, for example, QAnon. If something is hogwash, then that’s what Wikipedia calls it. However, attribution of views in text, as you appear to be requesting, is generally encouraged in preference to Wikivoice, as long as it doesn’t veer into both sidesism when there is significant imbalance between the consensus of mainstream sources and fringe views. Since you’re fond of quoting policy, a reading of WP:FRINGE might be valuable, since it forms a component of NPOV. In particular, since you’ve brought it up, WP:ITA discusses how and when to use in-text attribution. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My tone is mine and not yours to choose. (Personal attack removed)

But tone is the issue here. I have asked that the tone of the article be changed to reflect that of a proper unbiased Wikipedia article. I have not asked that any information be changed. I have not asked that any sources be changed. I have only asked that terms like "conspiracy theorist" which are commonly used to devalue opposing viewpoints and which are inherently biased either be omitted or be referred to as the opinion or conclusion of a valid source. You have refused because??? Wikipedia should never say, "X is a conspiracy theory". Wikipedia can say, "The New York Times says this is a conspiracy theory. Jordan Peterson says it isn't."

Could you please point me to the exact paragraph where is states, "NPOV requires that Wikipedia describe something in accordance with the consensus of reliable sources", because I have quoted to you the exact paragraph where is states that it doesn't and that it actually states the opposite. Also, what is your consensus of reliable sources? You have ONE, the New York Times, for most of the section and one more at the end talking about the train derailment. 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

And honestly, if you or someone else wrote a really comprehensive article with compelling sources from many different parts of the political spectrum showing why these viewpoints are legitimately conspiracy theories, fringe theories (you have Jordan Petersen and British Conservative Party MP Nick Fletcher promoting them so they aren't fringe theories), etc... with a legitimate back and forth and a true discussion of the facts that didn't begin and end with "we call hogwash on hogwash" and contain only one source, that would be incredibly useful (Personal attack removed). 2605:E000:5FC0:40:E1A0:F8B3:C0B4:A796 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean using sources from many different parts of the political spectrum. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We go by reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:SOURCES. If reliable sources say Jordan Peterson and Nick Fletcher are spouting fringe conspiracy theories, then we label their positions as such per WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In particular, reframing misinformation related to 5G technology as mere "criticism" and omitting the "conspiracy" from both QAnon and Great Reset conspiracy theories is highly misleading. What's next, do we refer to Moon landing conspiracy theories as "criticism of NASA"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

D'Acci and the T*-minute city

An IP editor has added a drive-by "clarify" tag but failed to open a discussion topic to explain what they think needs clarifying. In an edit summary, they finally said No one knows what the hell "isobenefit" or "morphogenetic" mean. I have to agree: these are echo-chamber jargon words.

• Wiktionary has no entry for "Isobenefit" (though we might guess at its meaning from the iso- prefix but that wouldn't advance us much.
• Wiktionary defines "morphogenesis" as "(biol) The differentiation of tissues and subsequent growth of structures in an organism." which again doesn't advance us much.

So, although I have a kneejerk dislike of drive-by tagging and tend to revert on sight if not accompanied by a talk page item, in this case I think that the IP was being charitable. The section is content-free prolix and does no credit to D'Acci, to the case for 15-minute cities or indeed to Wikipedia in general. So unless someone familiar with D'Acci's work who can rewrite it very soon, it really needs to be concealed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by concealed. I was considering deleting the section altogether. It really seems like a hopeless mess. It made me wonder what Alan Sokal is up to these days. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Taken out of live space, for example cut and pasted here for open-heart surgery. I assume good faith by whoever wrote it but it reads like a version one LLM wrote it on a bad day. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I've gone and deleted it, but I copy the content here, for the record. _signed, Willondon (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed content which may be salvagable with some work

D'Acci and the T*-minute city In 2013, Luca D'Acci introduced the concept of isobenefit urbanism, a spontaneous-guided planning approach based on a morphogenetic code inducing a T*-minute city (T*= a reasonable time to reach destination by walking) where one can reach within 1km/1mile: natural land, shops, amenities, services and places of work. It is based on a code for the simulations of isobenefit urban morphogenesis. It is a code to simulate urban growth scenario by modifying as one wishes the values of the parameters. The latter are related to densities, surface, population size, random factors and built probabilities. This urban growth model results in infinite outputs all satisfying the isobenefit urbanism objective function. References

"15-minute walk or bike ride"

This phrase does not make much logical sense. "Walk" and "bike" in this context are being equated as similar, but they are not. A 15 minute bike ride (5km) is equivalent to a 1 hour walk (google maps). This phrase equates to saying that "amenities and services are at most 1.2 or 5 km away".

It is either one or the other. One of these numbers is redundant, either services and amenities are within a 5km range or a 1.2km range. It sounds like it is just a catch phrase or marketing slogan, but it just confuses the article when we are using it like it is a factual fully formed informative statement. Wisnoskij (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Glaeser critique

@Acroterion: and @Sangdeboeuf: - What is your goal here? to suppress ANY academic criticism of this "15 minute city" concept simply because you don't like it and your goal is to sanitize the article of ANY criticism?

Edward Glaeser is well known for his research into the economics of cities. We currently have NO criticism in this article, and a whole section at the beginning sourced only to people who have written articles about this concept, some not even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.

The criticism isn't just "Glaeser doesn't like it" but he articulates the problems he sees with this concept and offers what he sees as better alternatives. But you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? so you want to keep it out of Wikipedia? ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop with the assumptions concerning the motivations of other editors. You've been around long enough to understand WP:DUE - this appears to be heavily weighted toward a single critic. Are there no others, or other dissenting voices in academia (as opposed to the conspiracy rumor mill)? It appears to me that devoting a paragraph to one person's views is disproportionate. I would expect to see a diversity of critical academic views. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not yet found more than one academic criticism (and no other editors have yet either). OF COURSE it is weighted toward a single critic, the source for that paragraph was written by Glaeser himself, as a WP:SPS from an expert in the field. If you can find any more sources I'd be glad to summarize them, but for now this is all we seem to have. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll look around. I have no objection to Glaeser per se, but if he's the only serious dissent it needs to be kept to a very concise summary of his views. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that he is one of a very small number of well recognized economists who have studied the effects of zoning policies on housing costs and economic growth in cities, and therefore his opinion/assessment would be one of the more significant voices in the field. Other views would definitely be good to have as well. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A blog post is a poor source for academic criticism. Are there no peer-reviewed articles describing the dispute from a disinterested perspective, as required by WP:BALANCE? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What dispute are you talking about? The 15-min city is a CONCEPT or PROPOSAL or SUGGESTION on how cities should construct/reshape their physical environment, with the people originating and proposing this as the OBVIOUS proponents who put forward their ideas on why it would improve cities from their current state. Glaeser has written his criticism of certain aspects of these ideas from an ECONOMIC perspective, which is what his expertise is in. He didn't talk about or criticize the social impact; he's not a sociologist.

If you look at the sources currently in this article, they all talk about the 15-min city as: Introducing the "15-Minute City" (2021) - how many peer-reviewed articles do you think exist about a CONCEPT/PROPOSAL that has first gotten widespread discussion/publicity in ~2020? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That different people support and oppose the concept itself implies a dispute, whether their respective support and opposition are rooted in economics, sociology, or any other discipline.

If the most prominent economic critique of the concept is to be found in a blog post, rather than an academic journal or monograph, that suggests the critique itself is WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC) edited 22:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So you just repeated what you said and ignored my point about this being a new concept.

I'll repeat my question: How many peer-reviewed articles (or academic journals or monographs) do you think exist about a concept/proposal that has first gotten widespread discussion/publicity in ~2020? The conspiracy theories got this topic far more publicity than it had before. (though all false information)

Your arguments seem to me that you care more about yourself being right than about making a better encyclopedia. Have you never worked on articles about new subjects? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it's a new concept does not mean we can ignore WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALANCE, which are policy. It seems that you are trying to shoehorn criticism into the article for political reasons rather than to build an encyclopedia. Maybe you think Glaeser's criticisms are valid; nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the place to "set the record straight" on this or any other issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We already cite several articles presenting various critiques of the concept under § Limitations, including one peer-reviewed journal article (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki 2021). The idea that I or anyone else is trying to sanitize the article of ANY criticism is plainly nonsensical. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I had only quickly reviewed the article when I added the "Obstacles to implementation" paragraph, and then later added the Glaeser paragraph. Now that I have read the Limitations section (thank you for pointing that out), I feel that the Glaeser critique could easily be trimmed to one to two sentences and put there. Edward Glaeser is a notable economist known for his studies of urban economics. (see this section). Seeing as neither Georgia Pozoukidou and Zoi Chatziyiannaki are notable enough scholars to have Wikipedia articles, it doesn't seem at all UNDUE to have a summary of his criticisms there. I have no issue with not having a separate section as the Reception section I created; I didn't notice the critiques in the Limitations section when I added the Glaeser content, or I would have probably put it there. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can create a Wikipedia article, so that by itself is not an indicator of notability. The WP:WEIGHT issue is down to the fact that unlike Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, the Glaeser source is a blog rather than an edited academic work, as I've already mentioned. Nor is notability itself a guarantee of reliability; plenty of notable academics have pushed fringe theories. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct on both of those points; but WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

And, this is not just some personal blog, this is his blog at the London School of Economics, hardly an irreputable institution. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The bottom of his blog post states: "This post represents the views of the author and not those of the COVID-19 blog, nor LSE. It is based on Edward Glaeser’s contribution to Localising Transport: Towards the 15-minute city or the one-hour metropolis?, an event hosted by LSE Cities, the Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft and the LSE School of Public Policy, and supported by SAP SE and knowledge partner Teralytics."

"Localising Transport: Towards the 15-minute city or the one-hour metropolis?" is a link to a YouTube video; I haven't watched it yet. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we can say Glaeser has actually published work in the relevant field; urban planning and urban economics seem like different specialties. In any case, the blog entry is still a primary source for the author's opinions, and should therefore be used with caution if at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Different specialties, yes, but highly interrelated. Glaeser has done studies on zoning's effect on housing prices, as well as other reserach. Zoning is urban planning and housing costs are one of its effects, which then are urban economics.

I agree about the caution when using primary sources; if you read the way I wrote the addition, I was very careful about attributing this as his opinion(s), rather than fact. I wrote: Glaeser said, he said, and he says for every sentence. (which can be reduced from the three sentences I crafted.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)