Proximity, Choice and Well-Being for Sustainable Cities Through Co-Created CalmMobility

Proximity-based urban models, including the widely discussed 15 min city, aim to bring everyday destinations within a short walk, cycle, or shared-mobility trip, with promising benefits for well-being, public health, local economies, and low-carbon mobility. While the appeal of proximity is widely shared, far less is known about how to deliver and govern such neighbourhoods so that these benefits are realised, durable, and embraced by residents across the full range of their mobility needs. Implementation, public acceptance, and governance therefore remain comparatively under-examined. This article contributes an enabling governance approach for proximity-based, accessible neighbourhoods, centred on co-creation and on a rich, attractive menu of mobility options. Through a cross-disciplinary synthesis organised by the CalmMobility paradigm, a governance-posture lens that emphasises co-creation, sequencing, and readiness, it integrates evidence on proximity, accessibility, active travel, shared mobility, well-being, and low-carbon outcomes. The article argues that proximity and shared mobility widen the range of convenient and attractive options for everyday trips, and that this supports health, quality of life, and lower emissions. It also argues that these benefits are more likely to last under calm, co-created governance, which builds good options first and respects the freedom of residents to choose among all modes, including the car. To put the paradigm to work, the study introduces the Governance Compass and applies it to Paris, Barcelona, and Melbourne. The Compass was applied through a qualitative document analysis carried out by one analyst. It is offered as an exploratory tool that aims to make the reasoning open to inspection, not as a validated measuring instrument. Results are reported as ordinal bands, from Absent to Exemplary, and a 0 to 100 index is kept only as an illustration. The three cases show different patterns. In Paris and in the early Barcelona work, the documents set ambitious proximity goals but say much less about how change is paced, how residents shape it, and how choice is preserved, and these dimensions fall in the lower bands. In Melbourne, whose programme is still a pilot, the pattern is the reverse. The process dimensions are stronger there, but proximity itself is less developed. These bands describe the documents examined, not a fixed ranking of the three cities. Positioned as a constructive complement to the proximity-city agenda rather than a critique of it, the article closes with a cross-disciplinary research agenda spanning planning, transport, public health, and policy.