The globalists made me walk here

A 15-Minute Conspiracy

I had a tough time in urban planning school. The coursework was deeply engaging and I had the immense privilege of studying alongside some of the brightest and coolest people I know in the bustling core of Toronto. I took the GO Train in from Hamilton, got to study in a model of adaptive reuse (renovating and using a building for a purpose other than that for which it was built), and learned about fascinating new city building ideas. Way better than SimCity.

What I had a problem with was squaring my ideological foundations with what we were being taught. I balked at guest speakers who encouraged us to use our skills to make the city more attractive to conventional businesses. I argued with professors whose ideas of the city had not evolved since the mid-1980s. I felt trapped in a summer internship that showed me just how dysfunctional municipal planning departments are in the contemporary city.

There were a few bright spots, though. Learning about sustainability efforts or how we can use the power of planning to bring communities closer, bridge divides between people, and create a healthier world. One of the most exciting ideas, albeit one that was only fully articulated the year I graduated planning school, was that of the 15-minute city. We (mostly my fellow students, with some guidance from instructors) had been talking about walkability, complete streets, and mixed-use intensification with enthusiasm for the duration of my time in planning school, but the idea of a 15-minute city was a clear and concise combination of all these ideas into one coherent, policy-oriented idea.

Seven years later, thanks in part to Canada’s Saddest Academic (Toronto category)™, the concept is the newest front in the ongoing War on Everything being waged by the furthest fringes of the reactionary right. The 15-minute city has gone from being an idealistic planning goal to, according to some of the right’s thought leaders, a part of an evil globalist communist agenda to keep us in open-air climate prisons.1 The narrative shift here is…baffling.

So how did we get here?

Walking to the shop

First thing’s first: what is a 15-minute city?

The core concept is simple. A 15-minute city is an urban space in which many, if not all, of the basic amenities one needs are within a simple 15 minute walk or bike ride from their residence. Want to grab a loaf of bread? There’s a small grocer just a short walk away. Need a bottle of wine for date night? Hop on your bike and there’s a wine shop within a few minute’s ride. Need some painkillers because all you had was bread and wine yesterday? There’s a pharmacy on the corner. Simple.

A more in-depth explanation takes into account all the benefits that arise from planning in this way. Khavarian-Garmsir, et al (2023) provide a more detailed description:

They go on to note that there are seven key aspects to a 15-minute city:

1. proximity - closeness to the essentials

2. density - providing a “critical mass” to ensure the sustained operation of these essentials

3. diversity - this means both cultural and economic diversity AND diversity of building types

4. digitalization - open data, fact-based decision-making, and greater citizen input on urban design

5. human-scaled urban design - redesigning public space for people, rather than cars

6. flexibility - multi-purpose buildings and public spaces to maximize use and reduce waste (community centres that double as day cares, markets, and kitchens, for example)

7. connectivity - ensuring there is reliable transit and accessible paths to prevent any one community from being isolated

These concepts are pretty straight-forward and the best cities around the world are already implementing some of these ideas on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, many cities in Europe had these ideas as policy before the concept of a 15-minute city was even devised.

The idea was first advanced by Colombian/French academic and urbanist Carlos Moreno in 2016. Working as an advisor to Anne Hidalgo, the Socialist mayor of Paris, Moreno’s ideas became a core aspect of her 2020 re-election campaign (with a little French twist - their name for the 15-minute city was “la ville du quart d’heure”).

Hidalgo’s motivation was based, in part, on the speed of Parisian life. In her campaign launch speech, she told supporters:

Moreno is a fascinating figure. Coming from a farming family, Moreno’s first experiences of urban life were jarring, as his family was forcibly removed from their rural home and relocated to the city. An angry youth, Moreno affiliated with the leftist M-19 guerrilla movement. He fled Colombia in 1979 after being pursued by the country’s military thanks to that affiliation. Moreno settled in France, working his way up through the ranks of academia, and today, he is a professor at the Sorbonne’s business school.4

Moreno draws on the work of Jane Jacobs and builds the idea for 15-minute cities on the notion that we should have “eyes on the street”, with people living, working, and relaxing in small urban spaces that provide residents with what they need in a close-knit and friendly community.

Oxfordshire, in the United Kingdom, is just one community seeking to implement 15-minute city principles in their urban design. After the 2021 Local Elections in the UK, the ruling Conservatives lost 10 seats on Oxfordshire’s County Council (their upper-tier municipality) and a Liberal Democrat Green Alliance, with support from Labour, formed the regional administration. As part of their agenda to create a closer, more sustainable region, the new government pursued a 15-minute city policy.

And that’s where the trouble began.

Dr. Lobsterboy and the fun you can’t have on social media

Oxfordshire’s 15-minute city strategy was announced in conjunction with other measures, including a “traffic filter” trial that would work in much the same way a speed camera does. If you’re driving on a “filtered” road without a permit at certain times during the day, the camera will snap a photo of your licence plate and you’ll be sent a fine in the mail. This all fits well within the UK’s fascination with traffic cameras and fines. A little heavy-handed, but not the most unreasonable thing to pilot in a place with dense urban cores and notorious automobile congestion.

The two proposals - a 15-minute city and traffic filters - are not the same thing. They are separate policies with different aims. The 15-minute city seeks to provide people with what they need in close enough proximity to home so walking and cycling are preferable to driving. Traffic filters seek to limit car usage on streets to encourage people to seek other methods of transportation in a city notorious for congestion problems. One is a carrot, the other, a stick.

The conspiracy theorists latched onto this one quickly.

It is hard to tell where it started. On October 25, 2022, about a month before Oxfordshire’s coucil was to vote on the issue, a hard-right UK website published a rant against the proposal. The author of the piece conflated the 15-minute city plan and the “traffic filter” plan, assigning the origins of the movement to “an unholy mix of the UK Labour Party, the American plutocracy, the United Nations, and French academia.” Some classic right-wing British talking points. The French and the Americans? Hurumpf.

Most insidiously and beneath a layer of populist talking points (“we should be sceptical [sic] of these claims [about 15 minute cities], given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians, wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics”), the author equated 15-minute cities with lockdowns:

On November 8, a UK-based anti-lockdown campaigner named Bernie Spofforth tweeted about the World Economic Forum partnering with the UK government to force 15 minute cities on people. The screenshotted photo from the WEF comes from a March 15, 2022 article on the WEF’s website (itself a reprint from a January 25, 2022 article from Common Edge) talking about the resilience of the 15-minute city idea.

The tie-in to the WEF is like catnip for these kinds of folks. Obsessed over “shadowy cabals”, the anti-COVID measure extremists have been influenced by the same kind of far-right propaganda as many other conspiracy theorists. Much of this is tied to how the “globalists” (like the UN and WEF) want to impose an agenda on regular people. This draws from a common anti-Semitic trope about nefarious, unsettled plots which, again, has spread with vigour among COVID conspiracists.

The next day, another unhinged anti-lockdown Twitter account reposed the graphic, adding some fun embellishments about what a 15-minute city really means which, by all accounts, have been sourced from the reputable journal of Stuff Guy on Twitter Made Up. I believe that’s an Elsevier publication. Even thought the post received few likes and re-tweets, the elements of the conspiracy were coming into focus.

On November 10, a short WEF-produced video circulated among a few urbanist-leaning accounts about the Parisian move to become a 15-minute city, further fueling the rabid opposition from conspiracists. Two days later, the aforementioned October 25 article started to get shared around anti-lockdown and pro-Brexit accounts. From that point, the hysteria machine started to roll with intensity.

Oxfordshire approved their plan on November 29, 2022. After council members were harassed, the County Council issued a statement clarifying what the proposals actually entail, which included answers to the questions: “Will Oxford residents be confined to their local area?” and “Will Oxfordshire residents need permission from the councils to travel across the city?” (both followed by succinct reply: “No.”).

Katie Hopkins, one of the UK’s leading far-right spokespeople and third-place finisher on their version of The Apprentice (she technically quit, so more like their BenDeLaCreme, amirite?) peddled the idea that 15-minute cities were part of a “coercive control” program by the state to imprison people in their communities.

Opposition to 15-minute cities in Canada had been brewing during the Oxfordshire debates, as anti-lockdown people here have connected with their UK contemporaries and worked to spread the disinformation on this side of the Atlantic. Kinda like…umm…what’s the word for something that spreads from person to person through contact and can become a danger if left unchecked? Must be a word for that.

The Canadian opposition to the idea was signal boosted by one of this country’s usual suspects. On New Year’s Eve, presumably with nothing better to do, Jordan Peterson tweeted his opposition to the plan. Peterson wrote that planners limiting vehicular access to roads was a “perversion” of the idea of walkable neighbourhoods, linking to a tweet that used the always-reliable hashtag “#Great Reset”. Fun stuff.

But, as this very clever tweet highlights, Peterson is voicing opposition to the 15-minute city plan from his home in a dense and walkable community.

Granted, Peterson gets to play the pendant (“I said limiting where people could drive was a perversion! I don’t oppose walkability!”, he yelled into his evening meat salad), but tying the concept to a “well-documented plan” signals to the fringe that you’re with them. The globalists are here and they’re making me walk!

TikTok blew up with posts about “open-air prisons”, “climate lockdowns”, and WEF-led plans to take away our cars. #15MinutePrisons became a popular hashtag and, obviously, Canadian opposition took aim at Justin Trudeau, adding 15-minute cities to the laundry list of things they'd like to put him on trial for, like taking away people's guns and trucks and liberty and stuff.5

Canada’s richest suburban conservative (negligent, when it comes to oil wells) dad, W. Brett Wilson, posted a tweet about Edmonton’s 15 minute city plan, photoshopping the words “Edmonton 15 minute cities.” over a photo of the English city of Canterbury. A thought leader, indeed.

And, of course, extreme-right wing activist Chris “Sky” Saccoccia (developer, neck-tattoo enthusiast, anti-mask activist, uncool Chris) has jumped on the geographically-restricted car bandwagon opposing 15-minute cities, earning more internet fame for verbally harassing a City of Edmonton planner over the idea. Sky will allegedly be running for Mayor of Toronto to oppose the 15-minute city idea, if you believe Brian Lilley.

Oh, you’re surprised because the conspiracists are all riled up, Brian? Who has been helping rile them up, Brian? I wonder who, BRIAN!?”

A Conservative MP in the UK raised the conspiracy theory in the House of Commons. Ideas have been floated that 15-minute cities are the goal of a “satanic bus cult”. That we’re moving toward a “Hunger Games society”. That the whole dystopian thing “would make Pyongyang envious”.6

Woof, that’s a lot. Okay, take a breath. Think about nice things. This stuff can be heavy. And you didn’t have to go through Chris Sky’s Twitter account, so count yourself lucky.

A mundane theory for outrageous times

It is clear to see how this all happened.

The outrage started when a new local government in the UK pursued two policies at the same time: a more walkable city and traffic calming. The walkable city bit has been pumped by the WEF because, despite its reputation, it really is just a collection of boring liberal policy wonks who get excited about banal stuff. But the fact that the whole concept of a 15-minute city was devised by the former communist guerilla who now advises the socialist mayor of Paris reads like it was manufactured in a lab that tries to pump out the perfect conspiracy theories.

The traffic calming measures had the requisite level of British heavy-handedness, but fining people for driving at a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing without first doing some public education on the matter was a misstep. Even just converting some roads to pedestrian-only zones with bollards at intersections to allow emergency and service vehicles in would have been a much better approach. But tracking people’s movements with cameras hit just the right nerve amongst a segment of the population already jumpy about COVID.

It was a confluence of factors: a clunky roll out, just enough connections to things conspiracy-minded folks fear, and, importantly, a bit of a vacuum.

The vacuum bit is more complicated. The leaders of the anti-lockdown movement have been feeling the strain recently. The targets of their animosity have evaporated. No more lockdowns, no more masks, no more restrictions.

In Canada, the fringe right latched onto the anti-trans moral panic and began protesting drag shows. They became obsessed over the strange story of the Oakville teacher. They even dipped their toes into the Dutch farm protests over their government’s efforts to reduce emissions from nitrogen-based fertilizers, claiming that “Justin Trudeau will take away your meat.” After Pierre Poilievre retweeted far-right former Ontario MPP Roman Barber’s post about using a gas stove (another US-based culture war issue), columnist Bruce Arthur called their efforts “culture war karaoke”.

The only semblance of a coherent idea in all of this is outrage.

The cynical leaders of the hard-right (the Petersons and Wilsons and Skys) put on their shows, rile up the crowds, pocket all the donations, and stay in the spotlight.

But, for most people, this is a manifestation of their lack of control. More and more people are being left out of the economy. Precarity in work has replaced stable jobs. Connection with the people around us is replaced by connection with strangers online. There’s wealth and abundance, but fewer are getting to access even the most basic of things. So many of the adherents to this complete lack of a philosophy are vulnerable, scared, and alienated. And they are being manipulated by people who are either too self-indulgent to second guess their assumptions or too obsessed with fame to stop the show now.

Especially now, folks who have been primed by years of uncertainty because of a global pandemic that was terrifying, new, and poorly managed, when one of these hard-right thought leaders says something like “15-minute cities = climate lockdown”, the terrified masses feel a little bit more of their control slip away whether it is true or not.

Even more frustratingly, the Canadian left fails to provide a coherent alternative. The partisan left doubles down on stale talking points and out-of-date pocket book issues while the activist left is forced to take on the parties that proport to represent them, the new challenges of the far-right, and the day-to-day issues in their own communities. Pulled in all directions, there’s little most can do but either focus on one problem or burn out. Just ask anyone who has been to an NDP convention in the past 30 years.

But, in the face of opposition, we have got to do some work to defend the idea of a 15-minute city. Aside from the overall work of pulling people back from extremism by giving them real economic and democratic opportunities and instilling a culture of facts, trust, and honesty into our politics and social relations (all super easy, right?), we can still pursue real 15-minute city policies that provide services in close proximity to homes.

Granted, I don’t know how long this far-right obsession over 15-minute cities will last. Maybe if Sky runs for mayor of Toronto, it’ll pop up in the usual thought-pieces from Canadian journalists for the next few months. Maybe these anti-convenient communities folks will find something new to protest, like a species of speckled toad the UN is trying to save or a daycare in Markham where the teachers don’t hug the students anymore.

But what I do know is that the idea of a dense, walkable, human-scaled, healthy, climate-focused city is an idea worth fighting for. Progressives, urbanists, and environmentalists should continue to commit their energies to pushing for building the missing middle, making it easier to build mixed-use buildings, and responsibly increasing our urban density with people, not corporations and developers in mind. We need to keep demanding walkable streets where everyone feels safe, cycling networks that connect to important amenities, and high quality universal public transit. We have to hold local leaders to account and, come election time, demand these things. Because we deserve to be able to walk to our corner co-op grocery for a loaf of bread, a bottle of wine, and any other basic amenity we want.

Because, if planning school taught me anything, it is that a dense, walkable, beautiful community is a damn good thing. And it is possible, but only if we fight for it.

57 Days without Water

The situation at 1083 Main Street East has dragged on for nearly 2 months. Water was shut off in the 60-unit apartment complex on December 28, 2022 after a winter storm and has not yet been restored.

According to yesterday’s Hamilton Spectator (link to paywalled story here), Hamilton’s Property Standards Committee (one of the Agencies, Boards, and Commissions or “ABCs” of our municipal government) has sided with the landlord, who argued that they should be allowed to put off any repairs necessary to restart water service until the results of a March 8 tribunal hearing about their efforts to renovict the current tenants.

There are a couple of interesting things about this. First, the very idea of the Property Standards Committee (PSC) itself. The PSC is an entirely citizen-led tribunal of the city and is a body, according to the city’s description, “upon which a statutory power of decision is conferred by or under statute.” It is a 5-member body governed by provincial law, presently chaired by retired Superior Court Justice Thomas Lofchik. In 2022, it met once to deal with an appeal of a municipal order concerning a property on Ward Avenue in Ainslie Wood. It did not meet in 2021, met twice in 2020, and didn’t meet in 2019. This current batch of members has met less than 6 times in an entire term of council and then some. And here’s the wild thing: their term is technically up. The term of the tribunal has been set for 4 years. As Joey Coleman has reported, Mayor Horwath is keen to open up the appointment process based on new provincial legislation, but this year’s appointments to citizen committees is dragging. That means we have an ambitious new council working with the previous council’s citizen appointees on all the relevant ABCs.

Second is that this building has been in the news before. Back in 2007, the property was owned by Gus Michalis and his company Phoenix Apartments Ltd. In addition to owning 1083, Michalis also owned 540 King St. E, 1276 King St. E., and 1544 King St. E. After a dispute with Horizon Utilities, Michalis left two disabled tenants at 1544 King St. E. without electricity for days and racked up $6,000 in fines for doing the same to other tenants and entering their units without permission. A year later, he and his companies were fined close to $100,000 for the same behaviour, as well as changing locks, leaving people without heat in the winter, and taking tenants property.

In an irate phone call to the Spec’s Steve Buist in 2007, he told the reporter “I've been painted with this monster picture and you made my life 50 times harder to enforce simple, good living rules.” By 2009, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail for violating court orders in regards to his properties.

Michalis acquired the property in 1999 from the Deltazoid Corporation (in that same interview with Buist from 2007, Michalis said that the buildings were sites of drug use and that he had “no tolerance for crack cocaine and drug dealers”). After Michalis’ jail time, the building moved to numbered companies (this 2014 record of sale still has the Phoenix logo on the building) before being transferred to Malleum Properties around 2018. In 2021, the property was sold to the current owners, 1083 Main Street Inc. for $10,000,000. Property records also indicate a series of now-deleted leins (legal claims on assets after non-payment of debts to contractors, utility companies, etc.) on 1083 Main Street East. That’s what $50 worth of property records will get you, if you were wondering.

The whole story is a deeply sad mess. Tenants are fighting for their right to live in a safe, healthy, and secure unit and are pushing back against their renoviction after another property speculation company bought up something they wanted to turn into an income-generating asset. The plight of 1083 Main East gets to the heart of the debate in Hamilton (and, indeed, in Canada) right now: are homes an investment or a right? How long will we allow speculators and the ultra wealthy to buy up places where the most vulnerable and marginalized people in our society live and give them the freedom to upend the lives of tenants so they can make an extra buck by exploiting those presently seeking rental accommodation?

3 become 1: Peeling back the layers on a new megacity

Last week, the Brampton Guardian reported on a survey by the Brampton Board of Trade that found 58% of their member businesses wanted the province to pursue a formal amalgamation of Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon into a “City of Peel”. While Brampton has been somewhat ambiguous on their feelings toward amalgamation, Mississauga’s local government is far more opposed, preferring instead to become their own, independent city separate from the Region of Peel. One partner wants to split up, the other wouldn’t mind moving in together. #RelationshipDrama.

Amalgamating Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon would combine Ontario’s 3rd, 4th, and 34th largest municipalities into one megacity. The “City of Peel” would be Ontario’s 2nd largest city and the third largest in Canada.

It is unclear if this is just some wild speculation on the part of Brampton Board of Trade members or if this is an idea genuinely being pursued by the provincial government. Since the Ford government’s political style seems to be “settling scores/surprise legislation/whatever will benefit the developer friends of the Ford Family”, I doubt anyone will really know if this is something destined to happen until it is announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs at 4:45 PM on a Friday before a long weekend.

Speculating wildly, an amalgamation does fall in line with Ford’s obsession over finding efficiencies (despite the fact that the efficiencies promised by amalgamations are overblown at best and entirely absent at worst7) and it would go a long way to neutralizing Patrick Brown (Ford's predecessor as PC leader and continued nemesis) and Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga mayor, former Liberal MP, and someone Doug Ford believes is a "whiner"). For his part, Ford hasn’t “ruled out” amalgamation as of February 15.

If the province does force a merger onto Peel Region, one question I have is: will the Premier impose the same restriction on the new City of Peel as he did to Toronto? Will the city’s wards need to align with federal riding boundaries? If so, this new megacity will have a council of 12 + 1 mayor, meaning 1 councillor for every 120,900-odd residents. That will make the act of governing much, much harder and provide more opportunities for ideologically-right leaning candidates to use their money and connections to win seats, possibly leaving members of marginalized communities behind.

You’ll want to keep an eye open for news on this…you wouldn’t want to Mississauga it! They might Call-edon it in anytime now! Umm…Brampton.

25% of respondents say “let’s party!”

As part of my postdoc, I get to work with some really amazing folks at universities across Canada, studying municipalities and their politics. I’m incredibly lucky to do so and have really enjoyed getting to ask questions of voters during each election.

One of my favourite topics is the municipal political party. Canada is a global anomaly with the majority of cities here running non-partisan elections. This is all part of the Canadian obsession with running municipalities like corporations, a hold-out from the age when Canadian business elites took control of cities to prevent organized labour and immigrant communities from having any power (see my forthcoming book for more!)

As part of a research project during the 2022 Ontario Municipal Elections, we asked +4000 panelists their thoughts on municipal parties, breaking our sample into thirds. 1/3 were asked about parties in general, 1/3 were asked about unique local parties (like Projet Montreal or OneCity in Vancouver), and another 1/3 were asked about existing federal or provincial parties running candidates.

Turns out, folks either prefer the status quo or could use some convincing. You can check out our recently published article in Policy Options here.

I still think there is value in municipal parties. Voters need ideological prompts, parties can help coordinate policy agendas, seek out candidates from underrepresented communities, and bring a semblance of order to Canada’s chaotic cities. The party system works in Montreal. It works for major cities across the world. It can work in Ontario. The voting public just needs to better understand the idea. And, importantly, they need to be presented with a trial run of a party that functions effectively at the local level.

Cool facts for cool people

• Still no word on when Toronto will vote for a new mayor. Toronto city council meets March 29th to consider a report from their city clerk on how to move forward with what deputy mayor Jennifer McKelvie has called “the largest byelection that has ever been run in Canada.” The current speculation names a few possible big-name candidates: sitting or former councillors Ana Bailão, Brad Bradford, Mike Layton, and Josh Matlow; MPPs Bhutila Karpoche and Mitzie Hunter; and 2022 runner-up Gil Penalosa. And apparently, those arriving at Pearson Airport won’t be seeing Tory smiling down at them anymore after his portrait was covered with craft paper. Now there’s an opportunity for some public art.

• There’s been another raucous meeting in opposition to a new multi-storey development in Hamilton (paywalled story). After a kerfuffle over the proposed towers at Mohawk and Upper Sherman, another meeting (this time about a vacant lot on Paramount Drive in Upper Stoney Creek - see photo) saw residents come out in opposition to a 8 storey development. What’s interesting about this one is that the developer specifically noted that the units will be marketed toward retirees and folks who may want to use transit more than drive AND that this is how we stop sprawl. Opponents noted that the neighbourhood has been around for a long time without density and that they could “accept a three-storey limit”. There will be more debates and arguments over how the city grows if we don’t seriously consider the missing middle and alternative forms of development.

• As of the evening of February 22, there are five candidates registered for the Hamilton Centre provincial by-election. The four major parties plus Nathalie Xian Yi Yan (as expected). Curious to see if the New Blue and Ontario parties will put anyone up. According to a poster in the r/Hamilton subreddit, the New Blue folks are canvassing and sticking to their old transphobic playbook. Considering I am presently writing an academic paper on this (and that it isn’t as motivating an issues as they think it is), it will be interesting to see what their strategy is. The anti-trans issues pushed by the New Blue folks don’t even seem to motivate their base, who are more concerned with lockdowns, masks, and other COVID-related issues.

Tell your friends

I’d be eternally grateful if you let folks know about this project. I love my research and sharing it with folks, so the more people who get to see this, the better.

And, if you haven’t subscribed yet, it would be great to have you as part of the Sewer Socialist…party?

This was a pretty long edition for my second ever newsletter, so thanks for getting through this. I’ll work on some other longer-form essays and research projects in the future and, hopefully, they'll be engaging, enlightening, and entertaining. Thanks for sticking through it.