Talk:Planned community

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

Leaving aside the issue that the article is entirely about the Americas at the moment, why was planned community chosen as the title over planned settlement? A community is a group of people; this article is about settlements. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New town[edit]

The subject was discussed on New town talk page. If no one objects, I'm going to merge. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to register an objection. They are not quite the same thing, and this article deals more extensively with the concept in the US. I would not object to a name change and selective merge (turning this article into an article focusing on the United States, and merging the other content into the New Town article), but I object to turning this into a redirect. Suburbanization in the US is not the same as the UK new town phenomenon, and there really should be separate articles. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate the difference between the US "planned community" concept and the rest of the world "new town" concept? For now, the existence of these two articles looks like POV fork. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I don't care if we decide to merge, not to merge or to merge partially. I just want something to be done with the merge proposal, which is hanging here for half a year. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Town is a specific term coined for a British post WWII program, and has no currency in the United States. Planned Communities in the United States (especially those in the 20th century) are almost all private ventures (sometimes with government approval). Most of the other nations have substantial government involvement.
If the only impulse for this push is simply to resolve the proposal, then mark it as a failed proposal and be done with it. Horologium (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide, we'd better to do it for the right reasons. Actually I agree with the merge proposal for the reason given here by User:Epicadam: "it's not really important to me what the article is named; only that the information be found in a single place to aid readers". For now, both articles list major projects worldwide, addressing the local differences inside the respective sections. My question is: are these two a different phenomena, or they can be addressed as same, with some local differences. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that they are two different phenomena. The New Town article was (from the third edit) dominated by discussion of the New Towns Act 1946, which is specific to the United Kingdom. This was driven by the government, and was spurred by the widespread destruction from WWII. Countries which experienced significant British influence (such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Japan), all follow this model of government development. Most planned cities in the US, in contrast, were post WWII cities developed by private interests, such as the four Levittowns; Irvine, California; Coral Springs, Florida; or Reston, Virginia. If it were up to me, I'd move all of the government-planned cities (including UK, Japan, Eastern Europe, Singapore, and Hong Kong) to New town and the privately developed stuff to Planned community. I'd also rewrite the ledes of each article to differentiate the two formats. They are clearly related, but there are substantial differences between the two, which speaks to some of the sociological differences between the two cultures. Horologium (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Would you like to sort the countries per government/private construction? If so, I'll take your list and move them to the right article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the two articles, it appears that the only two countries which really fit into my criteria are the US and Canada. Obviously, Washington, DC doesn't qualify as a planned community under the post-WWII paradigm, but most of the US and Canadian planned cities do. The Canadian planned cities were mostly the creation of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, and other corporations, along the lines of post-WWII US communities. All of the other nations' planned cities seem to be a product of government direction. Australia might have some newer planned communities which are not discussed in either article, but that's just speculation. However, it is clear that the private sector played a much more substantial role in Canada and the US than anywhere else. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll move all, except US and Canada to New town. Regarding rewriting the leads — I'm not competent enough, unfortunately. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at that tomorrow. I have some field work to do tomorrow morning, but I'll see what I can do in the afternoon. The planned community article lede will require more work, I suspect. Horologium (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still unsure[edit]

I'm just going to say it...I'm still unsure exactly WHAT a "planned community" is. After reading the article (which mainly focuses on planned cities around the world) I still don't have a clue what one is. Perhaps a rewrite, condensation and clarification is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart discussion about what to do about 2 largely identical articles[edit]

I don't really care WHAT is done. But so far, under the current situation, we have two articles, this one and New town. Everything there is pretty much here, plus more stuff, however THAT article is older. One of two things needs to be done.

  1. Merge the two articles into one title, if these are the same concept (the content of the articles makes it hard to distinguish if they are or are not)
  2. Differentiate the text so that it is clear that these are different articles covering different concepts.

I don't really care which one, but something has to be done. --Jayron32 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a European point of view, it strikes me that the concepts are worthy of separate articles - but I agree that some clarify of the difference is required. As has been discussed before, the term 'New Town' in the United Kingdom has a specific meaning, linked to the New Towns Acts of 1946 and later, which legislated for the development of such towns. These are distinct from other 'planned communities' such as the Garden Cities of the early 20th Century, or eco developments of later times. Tafkam (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then, should perhaps the "New town" article cover ONLY the practice in the UK to cover ONLY those towns created under the New Towns Acts? Would it make more sense to make this, more general, article the home to everything else, and to significantly pare down the other article? --Jayron32 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. We could have a brief discussion of the related but different concepts of New town, Planned community and Garden city in each article, so if someone goes to an article which doesn't address what they were looking for, they will have a link. A hatnote might be a little too brief to differentiate the terms, which is why I suggest an explanatory paragraph. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large overlap between this article and the [[New towns] article. The UK concept of a new town is distinct and needs (and has) its own article. An article intermediate between New towns in the United Kingdom and Planned community does not seem to me to serve a demand. Example towns/cities are listed in both this and the Planned Community article, in a haphazard fashion. US cities that were carefully planned, not just on street layout, buy location and types of businesses and recreation areas (e.g., Reston, VA and Columbia, MD) are only in the Planned Community article, while Washington, DC, which only had its street layout planned is mentioned in the New Towns article. No distinction between the meaning of "new town" and "planned community" is made clear. The New Towns article describes a "new town" as "a specific type of a planned community, or planned city, that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed in a previously undeveloped area." The Planned Community article describes a "planned community" as "any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed in a previously undeveloped area." The text is the same. The current situation clearly (imho) calls for a merge. I did not go back to compare the 2010 articles to determine if there was a difference at that time. The current situation calls for a Merge. If one wanted to tease apart differences, a generic article on planned communities could merely differentiate them into governmentally planned communities (which would become the meaning of the New Town article), corporately planned communities with businesses, corporately planned suburban commuter communities, and purpose-built Company towns. Each of those articles would begin with "A planned community that distinction" making it very clear what is included and not. Examples would belong in the more specific articles -- not in the Planned community article. Dfoxvog (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

master[edit]

Is it just me, or is there too much of the phrase 'master planned' in this article? — xaosflux Talk 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Africa[edit]

Am I blind haha, or is there anywhere written about African planned cities? I know that there are a number in South Africa (Welkom, Secunda or Sasolburg), but also what about the planned cities in other (especially north) African countries? Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Overhaul[edit]

Currently this "article" is just an unsourced list of cities, which is little different from List of planned cities. We should dump the list of cities into that page and focus this page on planned communities in general, why they're created, how they've developed, and the history of planned communities over time. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How typical is typical?[edit]

The article says that a planned city/community is "typically constructed in a previously undeveloped area". How strictly true is that? For example, does the ancient city of Be'ersheba count as a planned city? See https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/beersheva.html, which says "It was a planned city, fortified by a solid wall of mudbrick on stone foundations." --Jhfrontz (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Paris?[edit]

Was Paris itself considered a planned town? And other major european cities, like London, etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Planned community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Planned community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Planned community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Planned Communities (i.e. CA City)[edit]

I didn’t see a section for failed cities, and there is one that is perfect for this: California City. It’s planned area is almost as large as the city of LA (no suburbs included), and there are still vast swaths of land with streets that are named, and that have addresses, but are undeveloped. Would this be worthwile to add? Roketman18 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drvengrad?[edit]

This “ Drvengrad, meaning Wooden Town in Serbian, is a traditional village that the Serbian film director Emir Kusturica had built for his film Life Is a Miracle. It is located in the Zlatibor District near the city of Užice, two hundred kilometers southwest of Serbia's capital, Belgrade. It is located near Mokra Gora and Višegrad.” is a description of a movie set now used as a hospitality resource, not an actual town (or an example of urban planning of any sorts). I suggest it needs to be removed to preserve the quality of the article, but open to hearing other opinions.

Taiwan examples[edit]

I've removed the few modern examples of planned communities in Taiwan, namely Linkou, Danhai, and I-da (should probably be E-DA). The biggest reason is that these don't have corresponding articles discussing how they were developed, but also, we need to have a good definiton of planned communities in Taiwan. Does Qiqi count? How about Hsinchu Science Park? I'm open for discussion, should anyone be interested. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planned_community&oldid=1212181169"