Is interesting your point of view. Because what planners try to do is the opposite. Essentially is just improving local walking accessibility with a catchy name while also generating an increase in transit accessibility. More accessibility is inclusionary. It is hard to see the exclusionary part.

Why would be the 15 min city the cause of the decrease of population?

Is not exactly what you are asking… sorry! But maybe understanding perception inducing after media exposure could be an interesting topic.

In our university they have running a pilot to see how opinions about sustainable transportation interventions change when talking to a AI chat. They set up the chat to be either favorable or not and see if exposing students to diverse opinions change their perception of the policy.

Key findings from our new study:

-Perceived and objective accessibility align more closely in high-density areas.
-Differences emerge across travel purposes, like dining where perceptions often play a larger role.

Ronda Sant Antoni shows how opening streets to cars immediately brings them back. Evaporation gives way to induced demand—a reminder that while closing streets has little negative impact, reopening them sees cars expand to occupy all available space.

Findings show fewer shorter trips by foot and more by car, plus increased regional car travel—highlighting the need for better transit. Thanks to coauthors Enric Martells & Oriol Marquet and my GEMOTT lab team at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona! #SustainableTransport #Research (2/2)