15 Minute Cities
Updated 7 January, 2026
The section below outlines what 15 minute cities are, how they differ from smart cities, and the possibilities that derive from them.
Urbanist Carlos Moreno's introduced the 15-minute city concept in 2016 as a way to ensure that urban residents can fulfil six essential functions within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their dwellings: living, working, commerce, healthcare, education and entertainment.
The framework of this model has four components; density, proximity, diversity and digitalization.
The concept encourages a lifestyle where a person's needs can be met within 15 minutes of their house, through walking, biking or public transport. Within these small hubs lie all the amenities needed for a community.
An ideal picture of a 15-minute city's scope
15 Minute City vs Smart City
The fundamental difference between 15-minute cities and Smart Cities is this:
A 15-minute city is a human-centred urban design philosophy,
while
a Smart City is a technology-centred urban management approach.
They can overlap—but they are not the same thing, and one does not require the other... HOWEVER - in practical terms they will still almost certainly overlap.
If the 15 minute city is the skeletal structure, the smart city is the heart, the lungs, and the essential internal organs that give that structure life.
15-Minute Cities (Urban Form & Daily Life)
Core question:
How close are the things people need to where they live?
What it is
A planning concept where residents can reach most daily necessities—work, groceries, schools, healthcare, parks, and social life—within 15 minutes by walking or cycling.
Key characteristics
- Focus on proximity, not technology
- Mixed-use neighbourhoods
- Reduced dependence on cars
- Encourages local economies and community life
- Primarily about land use, zoning, transport design
Key desired outcomes
Less consumption
Less cars
Less travel
Less waste
More compact cities and urban hubs
More walking and biking
More efficiency
What a 15-minute city is not
It does not require surveillance
It does not require digital IDs
It does not require data collection
It does not restrict movement by design
A 15-minute city can exist using entirely analogue infrastructure.
Smart Cities (Systems & Control)
Core question:
How can technology optimise city operations and services?
What it is
A technological framework that uses:
Sensors
Data analytics
Internet of things
Automation
AI-driven decision systems
…to manage infrastructure like traffic, energy, water, waste, and public services.
Key characteristics
Data-driven optimisation
Real-time monitoring
Efficiency and cost reduction
Centralised or semi-centralised control systems
Often implemented top-down
What it is not
It does not require neighbourhood proximity
It does not require walkability
It does not guarantee better quality of life
It can exist in car-dependent cities
3. Side-by-Side Comparison
| Aspect | 15-Minute City | Smart City |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Human daily life | Infrastructure efficiency |
| Core tool | Urban design | Technology & data |
| Scale | Neighbourhood | City-wide systems |
| Philosophy | Decentralisation | Often centralisation |
| Dependency | Walkability & cycling | Sensors, networks, software |
| Surveillance needed | ❌ No | ⚠️ Often yes |
| Can exist without tech | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
4. Where Confusion (and Controversy) Arises
The controversy begins when Smart City technologies are layered onto 15-minute city designs.
For example:
Proximity-based neighbourhoods plus
Digital access controls
Movement tracking
Automated enforcement
Behavioural nudging via apps or incentives
At that point, the city shifts from:
“Designing for convenience”
to
“Managing behaviour through systems.”
This distinction matters.
5. The Key Takeaway
15-minute cities answer:
“How should neighbourhoods be physically designed?”Smart Cities answer:
“How should cities be digitally managed?”
They are orthogonal ideas:
One is spatial and social
The other is technological and administrative
They can complement each other—or collide—depending on how they are implemented and governed.
1. 15-Minute Cities (Urban Form & Daily Life)
Core question:
How close are the things people need to where they live?
What it is
A planning concept where residents can reach most daily necessities—work, groceries, schools, healthcare, parks, and social life—within 15 minutes by walking or cycling.
Key characteristics
Focus on proximity, not technology
Mixed-use neighbourhoods
Reduced dependence on cars
Encourages local economies and community life
Primarily about land use, zoning, transport design
What it is not
It does not require surveillance
It does not require digital IDs
It does not require data collection
It does not restrict movement by design
A 15-minute city can exist using entirely analogue infrastructure.
2. Smart Cities (Systems & Control)
Core question:
How can technology optimise city operations and services?
What it is
A technological framework that uses:
Sensors
Data analytics
Connectivity (IoT)
Automation
AI-driven decision systems
…to manage infrastructure like traffic, energy, water, waste, and public services.
Key characteristics
Data-driven optimisation
Real-time monitoring
Efficiency and cost reduction
Centralised or semi-centralised control systems
Often implemented top-down
What it is not
It does not require neighbourhood proximity
It does not require walkability
It does not guarantee better quality of life
It can exist in car-dependent cities
Side-by-Side Comparison
| 15-Minute City | Smart City | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Human daily life | Infrastructure efficiency |
| Core tool | Urban design | Technology & data |
| Scale | Neighbourhood | City-wide systems |
| Philosophy | Decentralisation | Often centralisation |
| Dependency | Walkability & cycling | Sensors, networks, software |
| Surveillance needed | ❌ No | ⚠️ Often yes |
| Can exist without tech | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
Where Confusion (and Controversy) Arises
The controversy begins when Smart City technologies are layered onto 15-minute city designs.
For example:
Proximity-based neighbourhoods plus
Digital access controls
Movement tracking
Automated enforcement
Behavioural nudging via apps or incentives
At that point, the 15-minute city shifts from:
“Designing for convenience”
to
“Managing behaviour through systems.”
This distinction matters.
Treating Smart Cities and 15 minute cities as entirely different concepts is technically feasible but also potentially deceptive.
In New Zealand for example, it allowed the Hamilton City Council to say the following:
The (15) minute city concept is not:
a locked down city where you are monitored
a requirement to pay to leave your neighbourhood
A global conspiracy to control you
stopping you from owning a car
a digital ID
While in a theoretical scenario this could technically be true, in almost all cases smart city infrastructure would be applied to 15 minute city planning.
In the case of the Hamilton city council, what they were saying was deceptive because their intention appears to be allaying concerns while not addressing the fact that smart city technology could make some of those concerns viable.
The Key Takeaway
15-minute cities answer:
“How should neighbourhoods be physically designed?”Smart Cities answer:
“How should cities be digitally managed?”
They are orthogonal ideas:
One is spatial and social
The other is technological and administrative
BUT... They can complement each other—or collide—depending on how they are implemented and governed.
This is why each should still be evaluated with the other in mind, despite their clear differences.
