The issue of whether cities should be made by the “15 minute” model, which gives citizens an easy access to all shops and services within 15 minutes of walk, in order to reduce the number of car used in daily life has gained significant debate. While some advocate for the advantages of this “15 minute city” concept, others assert that it can cause social problems and create lacks in personal freedom among residents. Although the modern concept of city, where everything is build close might seem unpractical, I concur that modern architecture is better than old style architecture, as the modern designs are more complex and more practical for everyday life. Because it can be more affective for doing multiple tasks a day without spending to much time on the road. For instance, developing cities like London have complex infrastructure, which gives people access to move around the town without spending too much time on the road or without standing in traffic.
Traditional model of city planning requires spending more time on the road consequently planning less activities for day and working less efficiently. For instance, in cities with ordinary planning like Almaty, people usually spend a lot of time simply standing in traffic on their way to work, which intensifies their work schedule and makes them waste their energy, making them less productive.
In conclusion, “15 minute city” concept can be nesessary in many developing cities, as their population don’t have to spend much time in cars on their way to work. They can achieve much better results in eork, as they are able to do multiple tasks per day without being stuck in the middle of the road.