Conversations: Between Noise and Silence… in the 15 Minute City and the University

It often feels as if we live in a world of noise or silence. There are certainly times when it is appropriate to be quiet and times when voice is needed, but if there is only silence and noise then our humanity is diminished and planning as a shared endeavour of working towards a better future becomes very difficult, if not impossible. However, maybe we need to focus less on extremes and more on moments, spaces and happenings which do not grab attention, where conversations are or could be on-going and action moving along. A focus away from extremes may seem to be boring or ordinary, but on the basis of what currently attracts media attention, and, notably too, research grant funding, such consideration is rather out-of-the-ordinary. I have been thinking of centring an editorial on the theme of conversations for some time. I am intuitively drawn to the word ‘conversation,’ as opposed to other words concerned with human spoken interactions, such as dialogue, debate, discourse, argument, discussion and so forth. A conversation is suggestive of something more mutual, open, spontaneous and, yes, ordinary. Not something for which a case is prepared in advance, evidence presented or re-presented; an arena about winning and losing, however achieved, and at whatever cost. This is not to suggest that conversations should be completely harmonious. The most rewarding conversations usually have some edge, in which all participants find aspects of surprise, pause for thought and re-evaluation. So why now has the moment come to write about conversations? One stimulus will be obvious, the other not. I imagine there are few within the planning field, at least in the global North and West, that were not struck by the ferocity of the language and international attention that was unleashed at the various local authority plans to implement the concept of the ‘15minute city’ and associated traffic management policies. That the epicentres of this metaphorical planning earthquake were in my current and former backyards of Edmonton in Canada, and Oxford in the United Kingdom, probably also accounts for my somewhat piqued interest. The notion of neighbourhoods in which there is easy access to the basic services of daily life is probably as old as the building of human settlements. Yet in the middle of February 2023, such an outwardly sensible, if relatively rare part of our urban form, became the flash point of the latest conspiracy theory, fuelled by the instant global reach of social media. There are undoubtedly questions to be asked of the ‘15minute city’ concept, most especially, how far market forces will allow everyone to get the opportunity to live in a community offering access to a full range of amenities, while also offering home to the people providing those services. However, these were not the issues exercising global attention, rather a dystopian world was constructed of a state-imposed urban form that would curtail individual liberties, through confining residents to prescribed areas and the issuing of travel permits. While the dialogue certainly exemplifies edge, it was not conversational in tone, and for the moment there seem few prospects of a meeting of minds. Academics have a tendency to perceive that, in contrast to examples such as the noise engulfing the implementation of policies associated with the ‘15minute city’ concept, our world epitomises civility, learning and active listening. However, my second stimulus comes from a reflection on how difficult it is and how rarely we converse beyond the siloes within our own context, especially across disciplinary boundaries. By disciplinary boundaries, I am not only thinking of those admittedly