That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land. 1917-1930:
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never thought, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.
That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land. 1917-1930:
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never though, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.