Jump to content

Talk:Urban planning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Clarification requested re: Density

[Tidied up 21/02/06]

The article states, "Densities are usually measured as the floor area of buildings divided by the land area, or in a residential context, by the number of dwellings divided by the land area. Floor area ratios below 1.5 are low density. Plot ratios above five are very high density." I don't have a problem with (floor area)/(land area), since you are dividing area by area and thus arriving at a pure (unitless) number. But in (number of dwellings)/(land area), you are dividing a pure number by an area in an attempt to arrive at a pure number. Therefore, the unit of area should be specified.

It looks as if that's been clarified, but Floor Area Ratio is being used ambiguously. Although it's defined as (floor area)/(land area), the numbers used (e.g., <2 for exurbs) imply (floor area)/(area of building footprints). Could someone who is familiar with the term correct that? Here's theoriginal change if that helps. Bennetto 02:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Floor area ratio is only one way of measuring density, and not necessarily the most useful, since different kinds of buildings are occupied in different ways, and in different cultures. There is also residential density (the number of dwellings per Ha or per Km2, or per acre or per sq. mile), and there is population density (number of people per Ha/Sq.Km/acre/sq.mile). And then there are even more specific uses of the term 'urban density' (by people such as Peter Newman) which refers to the total number of people divided by the total area of 'urban land' in any given city, or part of a city, such as a local government area, or census district etc). There are also measures of employment density (number of jobs per unit of area, take your pick, SI or Imperial), and any number of others that are relevant to the planning issue under consideration. This section of the article needs a fair bit of work (esp the transport section).Eyedubya 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming / 'land use planning'

Surely a better name for this article would be "Land use planning" as planning occurs in rural areas as well.G-Man 19:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Urban planning and land use planning are two seperate areas of study. Land use planning is a topic studied by urban planners, but they are not necessarily the same. --Chris 03:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
So why does land use planning redirect here then?. G-Man 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Because no one has written the article. In the meantime it can point here, but this article is about urban planning! Feel free to add your own about land use planning, and we can link them together. --stochata 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Im with the above comments, if anything urban planning is only one part of land use planning, i have had a go at what i hope is up to scratch for a land use plannign article, i kept it minimalist as i note there alot of "xxx planning" articles most of which are not very good. Bjrobinson 13:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Addressing considered a part of urban planning?

Mention if house addressing and street numbering have ever been considered a part of urban planning, and why not. Give a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_numbering

Planners get tasked to manage address systems, but it's not an essential element of "urban planning" by any stretch. In my personal experience, the post office and emergency management are leaders in addressing, with planners coordinating. --JC Shepard 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, added Urban_planning#Addressing. Jidanni 10:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misc

I'm embarking on a major overhaul of this page. Much of the information is incomplete, and too narrowly focused on a) physical planning and b) American planning. Townsnda 08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As a long-time lurker, longer-time urban planner, I like the feel of this article; however, it is high on fluff and low on substance. There is enough controversy within the profession itself regarding what "urban planning" is to make the topic difficult. See, e.g., Myers, D. and T. Banerjee (2005) "Longer View: Toward Greater Heights for Planning: Reconciling the Differences between Profession, Practice, and Academic Field,"Journal of the American Planning Association. 71(2): 121-129, which I myself don't personally agree with, yet presents a strong argument. This would be a better entry sticking to description and leaving original opinions to the journals. (See Wikipedia:No original research). JC Shepard 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On the planning and transportation topic, none mentioned motorcycles. Surely they work well on traffic, and traffic jams are reduced in cities where there is a high percentage of motorcycle riders, and they are familiar to us for over a century. But this contributor doesnt know the numbers. Anybody? Mauricio Manco ( oitoparafusos@hotmail.com )

Removals

I removed this. It isn't anywhere close to NPOV. Andy Shepard

Many urban areas show little sign of ever having being planned in any coherent or socially-aware way. Buildings and spaces may reflect the different priorities of a different era, or simply demonstrate an undue (anti-social or environmentally-insensitive) emphasis on the priorities of the organisation or individual that paid for their construction. Left-over parts of a town or city that appear to serve no particular purpose have been labelled by the pejorative acronym "SLOAP" meaning Space Left Over After Planning. Unfortunately such spaces are all too common, particularly in suburban areas, and planners, businesses, politicians, land agents and communities all have a duty to consider how these flaws in the urban fabric might be repaired.

In adding a paragraph on urban planning to Mitigation of global warming, I discovered that these are all redlinks. Are there articles they should redirect to? Otherwise we should create the articles.

--Singkong2005 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reallyy nowww?


  • FIXED Transport Nodes now redirects to somewhere logical
  • FIXED Town center redirects to Town CenTRE
  • ????? I suppose medium density should goto to 'Development Density' but no such page exists

Mixed use is a nice article... i hadn't seen it before :) Bjrobinson 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

reversion 6/6/6

Reverted article back form this: [1]. Although quite well written and relatively interesting it added whay too mush to the opening section, was in a strange format, appeared to be the (very intelligent) personal veiws of the author, looked silly, was unnesscarily long, was unsourced.Bjrobinson

Reinsertion of "Comeback Cities"

discussion started at User talk:EurekaLott:

Hi EurekaLott. You removed a book reference in the article on Urban planning. It is a very classic and important book for the topic, especially on revival of extant urban areas, so I put it under a general bibliography. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

I never heard of it either... amazon sales rank of #164,382 and using the "what people bought after vieing this page thingy" i reckon only 14 people have ever bought it. Bjrobinson 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the book was added to the Notes section, I removed the General bibliography section as redundant. Hope that works for everybody. - EurekaLott 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it works for now. Looking up a scholarly book on Amazon to see how important it is --- that's not a good method. Useful for popular fiction, etc. Some of the best texts and scholarly books have very few sales on Amazon but are highly quoted and respected. One should have qualitatively looked it up using Google. I also had included a Business Week review of the book. And a lot more than "14" people bought it since it is used in university courses. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, of course, it has been included as part of the canon of the American Planning Association, the professional society for urban planners in America. [2] Quoting from the American Planning Assocation synopsis:

In COMEBACK CITIES, Paul Grogan and Tony Proscio show how innovative, pragmatic tactics for easing the nation’s urban ills have produced results beyond anyone’s expectations.

Ineffective efforts by big government and business working independently have given way to public-private partnerships and grassroots nonprofit organizations that are willing to experiment to solve urban problems. Pragmatism, not dogma, has produced the charter schools movement and a new law enforcement focus on “quality of life” issues. A new breed of big city mayors has welcomed business back into the city, demanded results and performance from city agencies, downplayed divisive racial politics, and cracked down on symptoms of social disorder. As a consequence, America’s inner cities are becoming vital communities once again.

Although there is still much to be done, Grogan and Proscio base their optimism on several trends that could boost the impact of grassroots community development. For example, ample access to capital and credit, reductions in violent crime, and much-needed overhauls of public housing, welfare, and public schools all are harbingers of urban revival.

Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times has written that this book is "arguably the most important book about cities in a generation."

Paul Grogan was a professor at Harvard Business School and also an administrator. For a bio, see[3].

And here are some significant reviews of the book. [4] ... from the New York Times to the journal "Urban Affairs".

--- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ok. As always we all manage to make it all right :) This page is #1 on a goolg serch now though so we do need to keep it 'tight'. Bjrobinson 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


reconstruction

Whatever the motives... this section is good? The pictures are welcome too, nice one of the Kabul Masterplan.Bjrobinson 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's an entirely positive addition. This section, ARCADD, Inc., City of Light Development, Hisham N. Ashkouri, and most of the contributionsof User:Arcaddmarketing appear to be one big self-promotion effort. - EurekaLott12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't deny that... the username even includes 'marketing'. Ill go with the consensus, but currently i think its done sensitively. The pictures are also useful, we could do with a GNU licensed masterplan pic for other planing related articals Bjrobinson 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Non-planning"

I think this article could deal with the examples of laissez-faire or non-existent zoning, whioch occurs in both developed and developing countries (e.g. Houston, Texas) and its effects. Grant65 |Talk 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

a quick glance into google maps will reveal, that there is no such thing as non-planning either in the usa or, as far as i know, in any other developped country. apart from the usual urban sprawl, houston looks well planned to me. one could certainly look up the effects of non-planning in places like kathmandu or bogota.Sundar1 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Looks well-planned" is not the same thing as planned. The article on Houston says:
Houston is the largest city in the United States without zoning laws, and so has grown in a different manner. Rather than a single "downtown" as the center of the city's employment, five additional business districts have grown throughout the city: Uptown, Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza, Westchase, and Greenspoint.
Is there a comparable examples of a large city without zoning in the developed world? Grant| Talk 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The concern over the lack of public planning of Houston remains a concern internally. There have been I think 4 episodic attempts to apply statutorily-enabled zoning since the early 1900s, but all of these attempts were defeated by pro-growth interests in the area. The City of Houston does keep a minimal set of written ordinances, something like a form-based code, related to development in the city and its extraterritorial jurisdictional area. But it tends to control development through the deployment of public infrastructure primarily, and via subdivision regulations secondarily. There is no general or comprehensive plan map or set of declared public goals around which to gain consensus. The city, and the counties that contain it, are subject at times to titanic struggles over the future direction of growth and development which make and break personal and corporate fortunes and shift political power. The classic conflicts between social equity, environmental protection and economic development are very active here but generally less than perceptible to the public. Paulsuckow (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cells

What is this 'cells' business mentioned in the article under aesthetics? Honestly never heard of them except in passing reference to new towns. Does this paragraph need to be there? Bjrobinson 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok im going to remove this then :) Bjrobinson 13:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Urban history

FYI, I created a category called Category:Urban history that is collecting the history of cities. -Freechild 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seminal Books section

This section makes me very nervous... anyone have a proper source to justify this list?Bjrobinson 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And how can the Kerb 15 publication...released April 2007...be a seminal work? Maybe use theeconomics page as a model? Call it study resources or further reading. Matt Kuzmatt913:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Transport

This section is of high importance, makes many assertions, yet provides few, if any, sources. There are more ways of calculating density than Floor Area Ratio, and this section should acknowledge this, as well as providing comprehensive links to sources for all figures etc.Eyedubya 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a severe issue with the graph provided that compares a city's size to the amount of gasoline the people use. The units in which the gasoline is measured in is not given, so is it litres? gallons? millilitres? etc. 17:41:40, 20 March 2011 (ET) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 99.237.251.98(talk)

Spam removal

It is not acceptable in WP to place references to ones own work. if it is important, someone else will do so, See WP:COI. The ones added by Mesmith9 to his own work have been removed, and also the links added by an anon. apparently working on behalf of clients. DGG (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it fair to say their is a gradual decline in quality on this page. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
is there other stuff to be removed? DGG (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The last one seems ok but the rest seem to fail WP:EL, namely:
  • Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
--NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The last one would probably be better if added to the New urbanism article instead of this one. If any of these are to be added back to the article, Planetizen would probably be the most appropriate. It's become the premier portal for urban planning issues, and among other things, serves as a human-edited aggregator for planning news. - EurekaLott (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
*Cyburbia is almost certainly the largest and most 'reliable' urban planning community on the net with very in depth discussion carried out in a pretty professional manner, having been around since the 90's. U actually use Cyburbia for proper advice about proper things. It should not be removed.
*Planetizen is considered fairly reliable amongst collegues.
*Planningnewsvote is an RSS feed type thing? Never heard of it. Lots of non related stuff on it, doenst seem useful to have it here
*New Very 'Americocentric', but a professional 'journal' of sorts
*Comment. The key is to keep this free of specific interest sites and pressure groups.Bjrobinson (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Who got rid of all of these? We need links to American Planning Assoc and Royal Town Planning Institute at the very least too. Bjrobinson (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should be adding links to the APA or RTPI, because people would then want to add other national organizations like the Canadian Institute of Planners, the New Zealand Planning Institute, the Malaysian Institute of Planners, and so on. - EurekaLott (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone? I get the feeling that if I was the guy from "the other planning Web site", the links would be restored like that (snaps fingers). Elmwood (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But you kept a link to the planning portion of the ODP, which you happen to maintain. This could be seen as a conflict of interest; I know when I've done anything that is even barely perceived as such, I'm subject to The Wrath of the Administrators. Elmwood (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
But, this is ENG WP therefore APA and RTPI should be included as the most relevent organisations to the subject. Canadian PA were included as their definition was useful and was used in the intro. Why not add Aus and NZ ones to prevent argument? 5 links to the key Planning organisations of the main english speaking countries + 3 of the ones listed above is hardly too much to ask for a 'root' topic such as this which leads onto to many smaller topics. 8 In total is not too many. Bjrobinson (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes on the national ones just for equal treatment. New American City strikes me as an online magazine, and not a suitable link. DGG (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the APA and RTPI have WP articles, but nothing yet for the PIA (Planning Institute of Australia) ... my view is that there should be articles on WP about such organisations, and the links to the pages on this page can be listed under 'See also' Eyedubya (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Planning Process

I have an article I have been working on about the comprehensive planning process. I think mentioning the process and adding a link to the article page in the Process section of this article may be a good idea, since the comprehensive planning process is a large part of urban planning. Str0426 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

low quality references

I have removed some references to unauthoritative or local web sites that were used to satisfy fact tags; published RSs are needed. As they statements being documented are very general, it should be possible to find them in authoritative textbooks or the like. 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)

Hippodamus & Alexandria

While Hippodamus may be credited with developing urban planning, he could not have had anything to do with the design and construction of Alexandria as his life and Alexander were a century apart. The line referring to "Alexander commissioned him (Hippodamus) to lay out his new city of Alexandria" needs to be removed. Even in the history of Alexandria, Hippodamus is not mentioned... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this editor meant to propose this as a new external link, but made the error of embedding it into a discussion from January instead. I have moved her link down here in a new section for visibility. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Paragraph?

What is the second paragraph intending to say? I'm looking at the ending: "varying upon from the interlectural strategic positioning from university to university." —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.213.247.93 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Image and new section

The image should be replaced by an image of low-rise buildings (eg as the new ecocities), ...

A new section is to be added at aspects of planning; called durability it should describe the USA neighborhoods (see image, text at white picket fence) which are despite their indurability being copied in China (eg Beijing), ...

Ref=Home (documentary) 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable development and sustainability?

I don't suppose the editors could reduce that to just "sustainable development". Seems to be redundant to me.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

where i can put some links in the article ? פארוק (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the LibGuides link. You have to click on the blue tabs at the top of page to get all the resources, but they're both print and online and quite extensive.Flatterworld (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New Lead Section

Here is a proposal for a new introductory section, as suggested by WP editors. I've tried to summarise the subject, replacing the previous one-word synonyms. I dont think either of the references currently used are appropriate, and the lead section should only include a general reference text, maybe Hopkins', Urban Development: The Logic Of Making Plans.
So, for instance:

Urban planning is a technical and political process concerned with the control of the use of land and design of the urban environment, including transportation networks, to guide and ensure the orderly development of settlements and communities. It concerns itself with research and analysis, strategic thinking, design, public consultation, policy recommendations, implementation and management.

A plan can take a variety of forms including: policy recommendations, community action plans, comprehensive plans, neighbourhood plans, regulatory and incentive strategies, or historic preservation plans. Planners are often also responsible for enforcing the chosen policies.

The modern origins of urban planning lie in the movement for urban reform that arose as a reaction against the disorder of the industrial city in the mid-19th century. Urban planning can include urban renewal, by adapting urban planning methods to existing cities suffering from decline. In the late-20th century the term sustainable development has come to represent an ideal outcome in the sum of all planning goals.

I'll leave it a week to see if there is any agreement. --Jim Douet (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Some suggestions for improving this article are:

The third paragraph (section) talks about the sub-fields of urban planning. I feel that parks and recreation can be added to that list. I found online the salary of urban planners and think it would be good to add that to the urban planners section to inform people what they make if they are interested in this profession. i am confused on the theories section of the article. I think if they are going to make it "theories" instead of "theory" then we need to find more theories to make it more than one for that section or just get rid of the section as a whole. I also think you could add paragraphs explaining a few of the subsections of urban planning such as parks and recreation or public welfare because to be honest i don't know the details of public welfare and it's good to make sure everyone knows what these parts of urban planning are. I personally would not add those sections though until i got feedback on these ideas from others because I want to make sure others agree or disagree.

Kaleighp (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of salary is not appropriate. For one, planning is a discipline practiced worldwide and wages vary substantially between countries, within countries (for instance rural shires versus metro areas) and depending on your employer (government versus private firm versus sole trader). Rund717 (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Of Rural Planning

The process of planning for settlements (land use, environment, transport, etc) includes rural areas. Urban planning is performed at all scales and geographic locales (rather urban, sub-urban and rural). There are numerous synonyms which refer to the same set of professional practices. These have at various times included: urban, regional, town, spatial, rural, city, county, development, land use or some combination of these. (EI Urban and Regional Planning, Town Planning, Regional and Rural Planning, Township Planning etc.) The focus is on the primary stakeholder that the urban planner as a professional is practicing with. This is not unlike the numerous professional specialties of Medicine, Engineering, or Law. Several countries even specify in law the related nature of urban and rural spaces and the public necessity for planning for these spaces. For example, New Zealand has enacted the Urban and Rural Planning Act of 2000. There are numerous sources and I would summarize by suggesting that interested readers look through works like Becoming an Urban Planner: A Guide to Careers in Planning and Urban Design by Bayer, Frank and Valerius which discusses what urban planning is, what urban planners do and where urban planning occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomeditor1000 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your citation does not provide an actual definition of Urban Planning. Urban Planners are likely to also be involved in rural and regional planning but that does not mean the task of rural planning is a synonym of regional or rural. The fact that there is a "Urban and Rural Planning Act" means those two terms are distinct. Every reference to planning I can find makes a clear distinction between urban, rural and regional planning, see below for well cited references make the distinction clear.

As I've said before urban and rural are antonyms:
Urban - in, relating to, or characteristic of a town or city.
Rural - in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town.

If you wish to make the claim that urban and rural planning are synonymous than please provide a well cited reference and quote the relevant text.

Newman, Peter, and Andy Thornley. Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems, and planning projects. Psychology Press, 1996. "Urban planning is the focus of our attention and so other dimensions of planning are not covered, for example rural planning or regional planning which may be influenced by different factors..."

Allen, Adriana. "Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field." Environment and urbanization 15.1 (2003): 135-148. "Environmental planning and management of peri-urban areas is informed by three distinctive fields, namely rural, regional and urban planning..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilireson (talk • contribs) 12:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Neilireson, topically you are incorrect. Urban Planning does not have to be a synonym of any other type of adjective - planning to be factual. Rather the profession of urban planning includes planning for land use, infrastructure, water resources, etc etc at all scales, topologies and settlement locations. For that reason rural planning is a type of urban planning because it deals with land use and development in rural settings. While Dr. Allen is a professor of Urban Planning at University College London, they are no more the expert on the topology of the profession then they are of any other profession. It is opinion and not one endorsed by the profession at large.
From the book cited by Randomeditor1000:
"Urban Planners work in all kinds of cities- from large cities with million of residents to small rural hamlets with fewer than a hundred homes. In addition, whether a planner works for an individual city, for a regional planning agency or for a private client, planners are always thinking about the connections between the place where they focus their work and other places beyond those borders."
The American Planning Association has had a specialty group since 1979 that focuses on "small town and rural planning" at https://www.planning.org/divisions/smalltown/. The American Planning Association is the professional organization/association for which urban planners belong to in the United States and even some practicing in other countries. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation – Urban Planning

Stylistic suggestions:

I first noticed some issues with writing style that I think should be changed. First, the phrase, “it concerns itself with…” in the introductory section should be changed. Because the noun “urban planning” is non-human and non-living, it cannot do anything or “concern itself” with anything. This should be changed to something along the lines of, “Urban planners in the field are concerned with…”

In the history section, the phrase “had grown” should be cut out and replaced with “grew.” This is simply a passive voice issue. The second half of that sentence should be a new sentence and reworded to read “The pace and style of this industrial construction was largely dictated by the concerns of private business.”

In the technical aspects section, the list of “urban planning techniques” needs to be changed up to allow for parallel structure. This sentence should be changed to, “Urban planning includes techniques such as: predicting population growth, zoning, geographic mapping and analysis, analyzing park space, surveying the water supply, identifying transportation patterns, recognizing food supply demands, allocating healthcare and social services, and analyzing the impact of land use.”


Substantive suggestions:

The history section here needs to be vastly improved. I realize there is a separate article for the history of urban planning, but this section definitely needs a much better summary of that history article. The section here only focuses on the impact that industrialization had on urban planning and completely ignores the fact that history is a continuous, chronological record.

The very last section of this article needs to be changed up a little as well. An explanation of why urban planners “could be considered green collar workers” needs to be included.

User:Jam3jr (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Jam3jr,
Some general responses about your review of the article. The 'technical aspects' of urban planning are features/characteristics that are part of the professional practice. They are not techniques or practices per se. The history of urban planning as a separate profession or discipline is accurately summarized as the earliest professionals in known history to be paid and recognized in the field were during the industrialization of the United Kingdom in the early 20th century. As a result the summary paragraph focuses on the history of the profession rather than the practice since these are nearly always synonymous of each other. Finally, proper terminology should refer to urban planning the practice. Which is separate from the urban planners article following similar practice by other professions. Blanksamurai (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This article was really butchered. It should not have been moved to a new title in 2015, that really made a mess of the page history. Citobun (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It was extremely long, and, at the point that it was divided into subtopics included such intriguing information as latrine and waste-water planning. It needed to be broken up badly because it had devolved into less notable nuances about history, culture and non-fact based arguments. But yes, the page history is no longer whole. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urban_planning/Archive_1&oldid=1169933082"