The Real Meaning of the 5-Minute City, & Why Developers Are Getting It Wrong

The ‘5-Minute City’ is a Planning System, Not a Feature

A few months ago, we walked away from what could have been an interesting project. The developer wanted us to help design a mini estate, about 10 acres, with the full essence of a “5-minute city” embedded inside it. Schools, healthcare, recreation, commercial spaces… everything was expected to be within a 5-minute walk for residents.

On the surface, it sounded like a modern, progressive vision.
But underneath, it revealed a much deeper problem in the way the concept of the 5-minute city is being interpreted in our market.

And that misunderstanding is quietly shaping the next generation of developments, and not in a good way.

‍

Why “5-Minute City” Doesn’t Mean What Many Developers Think

The first misconception comes from focusing on the word “minute” instead of the word “city.” A city is large, complex, interconnected, and governed by zoning, scale, and mobility. It cannot be compressed into a fenced 10-acre estate, no matter how ambitious the developer may be.

Yet this is increasingly what we see: developers trying to “checklist their way” into global concepts by inserting whatever amenities they can squeeze into small parcels of land.

The result is predictable. Substandard “estate schools,” badly designed facilities, and projects that may be convenient for marketing brochures but do not stand up to real-world standards or long-term community needs.

The 5-minute city is not about proximity alone. It is about accessibility and about connecting a city through transportation and infrastructure so effectively that essential functions remain within a short reach, without forcing everything to sit side by side.

‍

So What Does the 5-Minute City Actually Mean?

At its core, the 5-minute city refers to urban systems that make life easier through smart infrastructure. It means being able to walk, bike, or use public transit to access basic daily needs within five minutes of personal effort. It means a city with functional transport nodes, coherent zoning, and well-connected districts that talk to one another.

• It does not mean building a train station beside someone’s balcony.
• It does not mean squeezing industries into residential enclaves.
• And it certainly does not mean that all amenities must physically exist inside an estate.

The concept is systemic, not spatial, and the emphasis is on the network, not the neighbourhood.

‍

How Misinterpretation Harms Our Cities

This misinformation might seem harmless. Like just another marketing buzzword thrown around to make property attractive. 

However, this has serious consequences.
When real estates developers attempt to cram in functions that do not belong there, zoning logic suffers. Poor-quality amenities emerge. Residents receive the illusion of convenience while the city continues to fragment.

Most importantly, we lose the opportunity to design cities that function cohesively. And every time an estate tries to “self-contain” itself, it will definitely become that: an island. Disconnected from the broader urban ecosystem. 

But cities thrive on integration, not isolation.

‍

What We Actually Need to Build

If we want our cities to reflect the true spirit of the 5-minute idea, then our focus must shift to larger structures that benefit everyone: 

Well-planned transportation systems,
Efficient land-use patterns,
Pedestrian-friendly streets, and
Infrastructure that allows movement effortlessly across districts.

The success of the 5-minute city depends on the city itself, not small estates doing the heavy lifting. A well-connected city automatically makes every neighbourhood more livable. But no estate, no matter how “fully serviced,” can replace the planning responsibility that belongs to the city as a whole.

‍

THE REAL GOAL

The true goal of the 5-minute city is not the fantasy of living five minutes from everything. It is the ability to reach everything you need without stress, because the city was designed with connectivity, functionality, and access in mind.

• We cannot keep shrinking global planning concepts into estate marketing scripts.
• We cannot keep choosing convenience over comprehension.
• And we cannot build sustainable urban futures on misunderstood ideas.

To build cities that work, we must first understand what the concepts actually mean. Because the future of African urban living depends not on how much we can cram into small spaces but on how well we can connect the spaces we already have.

‍