This study takes Milan and Nanjing as case studies to compare walking and cycling proximity based on the concepts of the 15-Minute City and the Community Life Circle. By analysing representative cities under different planning systems and socio-spatial contexts, the study explores the similarities and differences in proximity-oriented urban development and accessibility of public services. The research begins by reviewing the theoretical background and common goals of the 15-Minute City and Community Life Circle, and then analysing the comparability and research gaps. Through international cases, the diverse implementations of the 15-Minute City are explored to extract practical and evaluative insights. Subsequently, the international experience is combined with demographic and social characteristics as well as policy practices of Milan and Nanjing. The indicators and evaluation criteria related to urban proximity assessment are summarised. The analysis framework is structured into urban spatial characteristics (residential density, pedestrian paths, cycle routes) and proximity of public facilities (public transport stops provision, schools, cultural facilities, sport facilities, retail services, green areas, and medical facilities). These indicators use a three-level weighting system to reflect the proximity performance through the walking (300–1000 m) and cycling (1250–3750 m) thresholds. A qualitative and quantitative evaluation matrix is finally constructed to measure urban proximity. The comparative results reveal differences in urban spatial structure and public facility distribution between the two cities. Milan represents a mature compact city in Europe. It exhibits a more compact spatial layout and a well-developed road network, resulting in more balanced walking and cycling proximity to public service facilities. Nanjing is a large-scale, multi-centred city that is still in the process of development. The access to public services is affected by the city structure, natural conditions and uneven development. It presents stronger infrastructure development in its core urban areas, while the proximity to public facilities in peripheral areas relies more on the cycling network. In terms of urban policies, both cities share the common goal of optimising residents’ daily life proximity within 15 minutes. Further analysis of fragile or elderly populations demonstrates that walking proximity decreased by about 25% and cycling proximity decreased by about 10%. The results indicate that cycling has a stronger spatial compensation ability under reduced mobility conditions. In addition, the proximity performance is not uniform across facility categories. Retail services generate more continuous and spatially overlapping proximity coverage, while green spaces and medical facilities show more heterogeneous results due to differences in spatial scale and hierarchical organisation. This suggests that proximity evaluation should differentiate between functional facility groups in order to more accurately reflect urban service accessibility. Overall, urban proximity is determined not only by facility density, but also by the combined effects of urban form, transportation network and the spatial layout of public services. The findings suggest that differentiated optimisation strategies should be formulated according to the spatial characteristics of different cities to achieve more equitable and efficient public service proximity. Although the study is limited to two case-study cities, and does not incorporate service capacity or residents’ behavioural characteristics, it provides a reference for similar proximity optimisation and urban renewal efforts. It may also contribute to the contextual adaptation of the 15-Minute City concept across different cultural backgrounds.
Questo studio prende come casi di studio le città di Milano e Nanjing per confrontare la prossimità pedonale e ciclabile, sulla base dei concetti di 15-Minute City e Community Life Circle. Attraverso l’analisi di città rappresentative appartenenti a differenti sistemi di pianificazione e contesti socio-spaziali, la ricerca indaga le similitudini e le differenze nello sviluppo urbano orientato alla prossimità e nell’accessibilità ai servizi pubblici. La ricerca inizia con la revisione del quadro teorico e degli obiettivi comuni della 15-Minute City e del Community Life Circle, per poi analizzare la comparabilità dei due approcci e le relative lacune di ricerca. Attraverso casi internazionali, vengono esplorate le diverse modalità di implementazione della 15-Minute City al fine di estrarre indicazioni pratiche e criteri di valutazione. Successivamente, tali esperienze vengono integrate con le caratteristiche demografiche e sociali, nonché con le pratiche di pianificazione urbana di Milano e Nanjing. Gli indicatori e i criteri di valutazione relativi all’analisi della prossimità urbana vengono sintetizzati. Il quadro analitico è strutturato in due componenti principali: le caratteristiche spaziali urbane (densità residenziale, rete pedonale e rete ciclabile) e la prossimità delle attrezzature pubbliche (accessibilità al trasporto pubblico, scuole, strutture culturali, impianti sportivi, servizi commerciali, aree verdi e strutture sanitarie). Tali indicatori sono valutati attraverso un sistema di pesatura a tre livelli, considerando soglie di accessibilità pari a 300–1000 m per gli spostamenti a piedi e 1250–3750 m per quelli in bicicletta. Infine, viene costruita una matrice di valutazione qualitativa e quantitativa per misurare la prossimità urbana. I risultati comparativi evidenziano differenze significative nella struttura spaziale urbana e nella distribuzione dei servizi pubblici tra le due città. Milano rappresenta una città compatta matura del contesto europeo, caratterizzata da una struttura spaziale densa e da una rete viaria ben sviluppata, che determinano una maggiore equilibrio nella prossimità pedonale e ciclabile ai servizi pubblici. Nanjing è invece una città multicentrica di grandi dimensioni ancora in fase di sviluppo, in cui l’accessibilità ai servizi è influenzata dalla struttura urbana, dalle condizioni naturali e da una distribuzione non uniforme dello sviluppo. Essa presenta una maggiore concentrazione infrastrutturale nel nucleo urbano centrale, mentre nelle aree periferiche la prossimità ai servizi pubblici dipende maggiormente dalla rete ciclabile. Dal punto di vista delle politiche urbane, entrambe le città condividono l’obiettivo di ottimizzare la prossimità della vita quotidiana entro 15 minuti. Un’ulteriore analisi delle popolazioni fragili o anziane evidenzia una riduzione della prossimità pari a circa il 25% per gli spostamenti a piedi e al 10% per quelli in bicicletta. I risultati indicano che la mobilità ciclabile possiede una maggiore capacità di compensazione spaziale in condizioni di ridotta mobilità. Inoltre, la performance di prossimità non è omogenea tra le diverse categorie di servizi. I servizi commerciali tendono a generare configurazioni di accessibilità continue e sovrapposte, mentre le aree verdi e le strutture sanitarie presentano risultati più eterogenei a causa delle differenze di scala spaziale e di organizzazione gerarchica. Ciò suggerisce che la valutazione della prossimità debba distinguere tra differenti gruppi funzionali di servizi per rappresentare con maggiore precisione l’accessibilità urbana. In generale, la prossimità urbana non è determinata unicamente dalla densità delle attrezzature, ma dall’effetto combinato della forma urbana, della rete di trasporto e della distribuzione spaziale dei servizi pubblici. I risultati suggeriscono la necessità di strategie di ottimizzazione differenziate in funzione delle caratteristiche spaziali delle diverse città, al fine di garantire un accesso più equo ed efficiente ai servizi pubblici. Sebbene lo studio sia limitato a due casi di studio e non includa la capacità dei servizi né i comportamenti degli utenti, esso fornisce un riferimento per strategie di ottimizzazione della prossimità e per interventi di rigenerazione urbana. Inoltre, può contribuire all’adattamento contestuale del concetto di 15-Minute City in differenti contesti culturali.
A comparative study on the proximity of 15-minute city: the cases of Milan and Nanjing
Zheng, Xinyue
2025/2026
Abstract
This study takes Milan and Nanjing as case studies to compare walking and cycling proximity based on the concepts of the 15-Minute City and the Community Life Circle. By analysing representative cities under different planning systems and socio-spatial contexts, the study explores the similarities and differences in proximity-oriented urban development and accessibility of public services. The research begins by reviewing the theoretical background and common goals of the 15-Minute City and Community Life Circle, and then analysing the comparability and research gaps. Through international cases, the diverse implementations of the 15-Minute City are explored to extract practical and evaluative insights. Subsequently, the international experience is combined with demographic and social characteristics as well as policy practices of Milan and Nanjing. The indicators and evaluation criteria related to urban proximity assessment are summarised. The analysis framework is structured into urban spatial characteristics (residential density, pedestrian paths, cycle routes) and proximity of public facilities (public transport stops provision, schools, cultural facilities, sport facilities, retail services, green areas, and medical facilities). These indicators use a three-level weighting system to reflect the proximity performance through the walking (300–1000 m) and cycling (1250–3750 m) thresholds. A qualitative and quantitative evaluation matrix is finally constructed to measure urban proximity. The comparative results reveal differences in urban spatial structure and public facility distribution between the two cities. Milan represents a mature compact city in Europe. It exhibits a more compact spatial layout and a well-developed road network, resulting in more balanced walking and cycling proximity to public service facilities. Nanjing is a large-scale, multi-centred city that is still in the process of development. The access to public services is affected by the city structure, natural conditions and uneven development. It presents stronger infrastructure development in its core urban areas, while the proximity to public facilities in peripheral areas relies more on the cycling network. In terms of urban policies, both cities share the common goal of optimising residents’ daily life proximity within 15 minutes. Further analysis of fragile or elderly populations demonstrates that walking proximity decreased by about 25% and cycling proximity decreased by about 10%. The results indicate that cycling has a stronger spatial compensation ability under reduced mobility conditions. In addition, the proximity performance is not uniform across facility categories. Retail services generate more continuous and spatially overlapping proximity coverage, while green spaces and medical facilities show more heterogeneous results due to differences in spatial scale and hierarchical organisation. This suggests that proximity evaluation should differentiate between functional facility groups in order to more accurately reflect urban service accessibility. Overall, urban proximity is determined not only by facility density, but also by the combined effects of urban form, transportation network and the spatial layout of public services. The findings suggest that differentiated optimisation strategies should be formulated according to the spatial characteristics of different cities to achieve more equitable and efficient public service proximity. Although the study is limited to two case-study cities, and does not incorporate service capacity or residents’ behavioural characteristics, it provides a reference for similar proximity optimisation and urban renewal efforts. It may also contribute to the contextual adaptation of the 15-Minute City concept across different cultural backgrounds.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2026_07_Zheng Xinyue_Thesis.pdf
non accessibile
Dimensione
35.24 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
35.24 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/259317