One day Oxford residents found a leaflet in their letterboxes with the intriguing title: "Hi, guinea pig!". This was the way the organisation Not Our Future warned residents about the city's plans to introduce car traffic restrictions on main streets during rush hour. According to the organisation's members, this amounts to a de facto attempt to extend invisible control over residents. How else can one interpret the setting up of cameras to control traffic and scan the registrations of cars that do not respect the restrictions?

The Oxford authorities considered that everything the organisation writes about is pure insinuation. For they did not and do not intend to do so. They also claim - and with them the urban planners involved - that Not Our Future activists (including actor Laurence Fox, 2001 London mayoral candidate, and Neil Oliver, GB News journalist) are confusing the two issues. For it is one thing to restrict traffic in segregated areas of cities and another to work towards a 15-minute city (which the organisation also mentions). At best, Not Our Future succumbs to conspiracy theories; at worst, it deliberately fabricates fake news.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE And although this story happened some time ago, it is by no means isolated. Municipal authorities, not just in Oxford and not just in the UK, have earned distrust. They have accustomed residents to the fact that anything can happen in the city's backyard, even things that defy common sense. That they arbitrarily make decisions without considering the opinion of ordinary people. That they do not need to ask for their opinion, as they themselves know best how things should be. And finally - last but not least - they are all too often influenced by ideology, even though that is not why they were elected and that is not their job.

No to drivers, yes to LGBT

What should an ideal city look like, one in which inhabitants live in peace, prosperity, a sense of justice and security? The question is not new, as it was already on the minds of late Renaissance thinkers. Freedom, equality, justice, prosperity, but not wealth - these were the principles followed by the inhabitants of the island of Utopia described by Thomas Morus and by the inhabitants of the City of the Sun in the work of Tommaso Campanelli. Both had a say in their own destinies, not least because they elected their own rulers and, when they proved unsuitable, removed them from office.

And the ideal city in its contemporary version? Constructing a picture does not seem difficult, because the city authorities, not without the help of an ideologically committed media base, do not fail to provide residents with a vision of what they would like to realise.

The ideal city is, of course, a city without cars, laced with a dense network of cycle paths, with heavily narrowed streets, but with wide pavements on which numerous restaurants can set up plenty of tables for guests craving a vegan meal. How do they get there? Preferably on their own feet or on bicycles, as a last resort by electric scooter or public transport. Parking spaces? God forbid, the fewer, the better.

Cars may be graciously allowed, but only electric ones, as they only make no noise, emit no exhaust fumes and have a low carbon footprint (one can see that the production of batteries and the import of lithium from remote parts of the world have been forgotten). Since most people can't afford electric cars, vehicles that don't meet the ambitious standards should be restricted from entering the centre and perhaps even the city. If people recklessly insist on travelling by car, they must face the consequences. Financially, of course.

What about urban greenery? Cut lawns, blooming flowers? People longing to see greenery have to suffice with overgrown grass full of weeds. Mowing lawns is against nature, and nature comes first.

Need it be said that a city that is unfriendly to drivers must be friendly to someone after all? The LGBT community is perfect for this role. In an ideal city, LGBT parades, which have been sold to the general public as equality marches, could not, as in the past, take place without the patronage of the town hall. Marches by those who want to demonstrate a commitment to patriotic and national values can only be tolerated with reluctance.

Climate, climate and more climate

Am I exaggerating? Perhaps, but only a little. It is enough to look at what solutions are being introduced in various cities around the world and how strongly their authors believe that this is the only way. If Warsaw does not yet have such solutions, this is the best proof that it is still far from perfect. However, the bicycles that glide by and the tangle of bicycle lanes - which takes the pleasure out of travelling not from motorists but from pedestrians, whom it is all supposed to serve - show that we are heading in the right direction.

The way is shown by the more advanced. If London, Glasgow or Copenhagen have introduced a low-emission zone, restricting entry into the city, then perhaps we should follow their lead? For the common denominator for innovative urban moves is to fight climate change, no matter at what cost. Even at the expense of people. The climate benefit is also questionable, because closed urban zones cannot be driven around without burning extra fuel, and this, of course, means a not inconsiderable carbon footprint.

The problem is that even where the authorities are very keen to follow the path of progress, ordinary people are not keeping up. The residents of Oxford, instead of rejoicing that their city had a chance to catch up with the vanguard, took to the streets en masse in February to protest against the authorities' ideas. They explained to reporters from the local newspaper, the Oxford Mail, that restricting traffic causes a lot of problems and is of no use.

For Jenny Wells, owner of a mobile hairdressing business, this has meant difficulty in reaching customers. This is how she described to journalists the hassle faced by Oxford residents: "Instead of going through the city centre I have to take a circuitous route, it takes me much longer and I use more fuel. Everyone complains about it. Car traffic hasn't decreased at all, it's just been pushed out onto other streets. And when the cameras and gates are installed, all we will be left with is driving around."

"The introduction of zoning destroys business" - a poster of this content was carried by Geoffrey Schofield, who came to Oxford from Bristol. Not coincidentally. Ideas of the perfect city move like the plague and residents in other places know this well. If we can't put the brakes on this, he explained, it's all going to happen to us too.

Four thousand dying Londoners

The real battleground, however, has recently become not the small but highly prestigious Oxford, but London. The aim is similar, but the accents are distributed differently. The idea is not to radically reduce car traffic in certain places at certain times, but to prevent some cars from driving around the city altogether. This of course applies - the carbon footprint reminds us - to cars that emit too much exhaust, as newer and more modern cars are not subject to restrictions. If the owner insists on using an older car, he or she must pay £12.50 per day.

Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZs) were introduced two years ago, and in that time Londoners seem to have got used to the new rules. The thing is, at the end of August this year, the ULEZ is to cover the whole of Greater London, and therefore also a garland of surrounding towns. This largely takes away the rationale presented by London's left-wing mayor Sadiq Khan: cars need to be thrown out because they pollute the air, and four thousand Londoners die every year due to poor air quality. Suburban boroughs argue that there are no grounds for them to be restricted, because the air there is flawless. So they suggest that it is more about money, as the ULEZ entry fees effectively improve the city's coffers.

While the climate in general and the health of the population in particular are virtually the only arguments raised by green activists together with left-wing city authorities, opponents of the ULEZ have a whole host of them. The key argument is that the vast majority of people cannot afford to replace their cars with new, low-emission ones, even if the government provides some support for this. Inflation, at around 18 per cent in the UK, makes the situation even worse. Opponents also point out that suburban residents use their car far more than those in central districts and that many will lose their freedom of movement. And six months from the announcement of the decision to its implementation is far too short.

However, the London authorities, confident in their mission to save the environment and therefore the world, show no willingness to listen to those who disagree with them . The last hope, therefore, is the court, to which the five suburban districts have applied.

A career of 15 minutes

Low-emission zones, although they continue to arouse fears and legitimate negative emotions, have already become accustomed in many places. For some time now, however, the idea of the 15-minute city has been gaining ground. It translates time into space: the idea is that everything people need to live - work, shops, schools, parks, restaurants, cinemas, etc. - should be within easy reach. The range is precisely 15 minutes - preferably by walking, as a last resort by bicycle. Certainly not by car. In a city of 15 minutes, no commuting time is wasted, so time is gained for other, more pleasant endeavours.

The car in this concept is not quite hatched, but it is to be reduced to the role of an unnecessary gadget, only for those who really want it. All the rest can - and should - do without it. It is thus about the creation or rather the recreation of local communities.

The idea of the 15-minute city is linked to the Colombian urban planner Carlos Moreno, a lecturer at the Sorbonne, whose perception of urban affairs was reportedly not without influence from Paris. No wonder, as it is a very good inspiration. Paris and other French cities are even exemplary illustrations of the fact that even in modern metropolises it is possible to live the life of a local community. After all, every Frenchman has his boulangerie and boucherie (baker and butcher), bistro and café close to home. For larger purchases, he or she may go to the hypermarket in the suburbs, but will not tarnish himself or herself by buying a baguette elsewhere than usual.

The idea was popularised by the socialist mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, when she announced the division of the city into 15-minute zones when she sought re-election in 2020. A bit pointless since they exist naturally in France, but the idea itself was well received and Ms Hidalgo was elected.

The 15-minute concept, while worthy of consideration, nevertheless has significant gaps. Not everything can be planned as the theory dictates. You can - and should - have shops and a school, even a bar and a park close to your home, but what about jobs? After all, it is not the case that workplaces will adapt to the urban planners' ideas, unless it is an office hub along the lines of Warsaw's Mordor. A good job may be far away. Schools too - because the nearest one may not represent the level one wants for his or her child. Nor are cinemas or theatres scattered every step of the way. And how do you separate and organise 15-minute zones? Do we just throw it all away and hope it all works itself out, or do we plan ahead?

Opponents of the 15-minute city fear something else: the confinement of people to a small space that at some point will start to function like a ghetto. This is the term they use. Is the implication that the inhabitants, for unspecified reasons, will be restricted in their freedom of movement? It seems impossible, and it is no coincidence that this kind of opinion, promulgated by Not Our Future, has been regarded as a manifestation of a conspiratorial vision of the world. But would it have occurred to anyone a few decades ago that a city, not at war, could be closed down?

– Teresa Stylińska
– Translated by Tomasz Krzyżanowski

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists