The vaccines didn't/don't work - fact.
The lock downs didn't work - fact.
Your sources for this?
Power cuts are on the cards in the UK - fact. I've even had an email from my energy provider Powergen about it.
Food shortages are happening here - fact.
Yes. But - what has this got to do with local planning debates?
My point is this. The very same 'They' who allowed those redevelopments are the very same 'They' who want to introduce 15 minute cities.
This is the crux of it. I have been following the 15 minute city thing as Bristol is a prime candidate so it's big in local media. I think many have looked at the theory - that city planners went bananas for three decades prioritising car use over everything, and now are drastically having to backtrack - and construed it as an attack on personal liberty. As you yourself point out in the cited post, a few decades ago when car ownership was proportionally less retail and amenities were by necessity sited close to the communities they served or in town centres which were accessible by public transport from all districts. Then, as you yourself point out local authorities started encouraging out of town shopping as more people were independently mobile - more roads were built, often involving the demolition of swathes of housing and former retail areas, etc etc - and town centres and local shops, esp independents withered. And that's where we are. Problem is it's unsustainable on several fronts: fewer young people are driving, or at least buying cars, there is a real, societal move towards localism and then there's Net Zero, which is a real international target.
This argument is indeed nothing new. Local example - there's a huge, Georgian square in Bristol called Queen Square. Lovely architecture, greenery, trees and benches. It hosts events, food and music festivals, popular and appreciated. Between 1960 and 1991, however, it was bisected by a full sized dual carriageway. Nobody in their right mind lingered there as the air was permanently exhaust laden, the buildings black and the trees sickly. The council decided to divert the road and restore the park, to general appreciation however the outcry from the car lobby was deafening, citing.. well, infringement of their rights, liberties, "It's Orwellian!!!" etc etc. Thirty years on many can't even remember this. The road concerned has been incrementally moved further and further away from the old city and into a more sensible route where the only demolition involved has been 50s & 60s concrete. Most accept it, however the "but my car!!" section is as vocal as ever. My point is that these changes are generational. Equating new directions in town planning with dystopian prophecy doesn't usually come off.
If the schemes are so unpopular then surely all of the councillors who support the schemes will be voted out of office in the upcoming elections. (Rhetorical question.)
Agreed, rhetorically. As usual the variables involved make a sinister masterplan very unlikely to succeed, but don't let that get in the way.
No matter what solution is offered or tried for the overcrowded roads and housing areas, lots of people will not like it because the solution will inconvenience them. The problem is that any solution will never satisfy most people.
Exactly. There's a very vocal sector who will take anything that involves a need for shifts in societal attitudes and conflate it with some evil-plan to restrict everyone's liberty, because it inconveniences them in some way. In fact, as above, what they want to reduce the reliance on long-distance car journeys by making currently out-of-town facilities reachable on foot, cycle or public transport within 15 minutes. That's all it is, but the CTs will inevitably see it as step one towards quarantine because that's how they see everything.