Currently this article is located at new town, and both planned community and planned city redirect here. I think that this article should instead be located at planned city, because all of the "new towns" are also "planned cities" while some of the planned cities don't really meet the definition of "new town". Because there is currently an edit history on planned city (just two different redirects), however, only a sysop can do this page move. ~leif (talk)[[]] 20:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Not convinced there is a strong case for it (although there is a case). New Town is the term in common usage - even the French term translates directly to new town. The term planned city does feel more 'generic', but is not used outside academia in the UK (and, speaking as a planning graduate, rarely there) and, I suspect, most of Europe. Looking at 'What links here' the vast majority seem to come via the term 'new town' - random example Tung Chung - ( although a significant minority use other terms). The suggestion has merit, but I don't think the case is strong enough. Icundell 00:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I vote to keep the article here. All towns are of course at some point "new", but many fewer are new recently, since most towns have now been around for a long while. The "New town movement" was a specific program, and all cities start as towns. It may be reasonable to have two articles at some point, but the terms are largely interchangeable in planning community. BTW, you could move the articles by hand (i.e. copying all the text from one to the other and then redirect New town to planned city). If you feel like fussing with it, it might be better to have specific articles on Planned communities in the United States, Planned communities in Poland, etc. dml 03:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know a lot about the "new town" movement, but I think that the majority of the cities currently in the article are called "planned communities" or "planned cities" and not called "new towns". So if this page doesn't get moved, I guess someone will have to split the article up, but I think it makes more sense to keep it all together and just move it to planned city. ~leif ☺ HELO 01:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Do not move the whole article by hand by cutting and pasting: that separates it from its edit history. Either use the "Move this page" link or (if that doesn't work) ask on Wikipedia:Requested moves. As far as I am aware, the new towns and the "new town movement" is pretty UK specific, but planned cities occur all over the place. There is an argument to have specific articles on each. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for educating more wikipedians about why not to do copy+paste moves! It is important that people are made aware that they shouldn't do that. ~leif
- Although I se where you are coming from, I think that would be unwarranted fragmentation (at this stage, at least - maybe the time will come). Icundell 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I vote to keep the article here. All towns are of course at some point "new", but many fewer are new recently, since most towns have now been around for a long while. The "New town movement" was a specific program, and all cities start as towns. It may be reasonable to have two articles at some point, but the terms are largely interchangeable in planning community. BTW, you could move the articles by hand (i.e. copying all the text from one to the other and then redirect New town to planned city). If you feel like fussing with it, it might be better to have specific articles on Planned communities in the United States, Planned communities in Poland, etc. dml 03:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not convinced there is a strong case for it (although there is a case). New Town is the term in common usage - even the French term translates directly to new town. The term planned city does feel more 'generic', but is not used outside academia in the UK (and, speaking as a planning graduate, rarely there) and, I suspect, most of Europe. Looking at 'What links here' the vast majority seem to come via the term 'new town' - random example Tung Chung - ( although a significant minority use other terms). The suggestion has merit, but I don't think the case is strong enough. Icundell 00:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the latest concensus now is to diffrentiate between new towns and planned cities? I see that as an excellent move, coming from an geographic/urban planning background. In fact, the definition of a new town in this page is hardly complete or accurate. I plan to write a more complete definition, but shall I do this now, or until the page is split up?--Huaiwei 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Dormitary"?
In the subsection on Ireland, it says The area is now mostly a dormitary town for Belfast. I was unable to find a definition for the word "dormitary" in any of my dictionaries and a Google search reveals many misspellings of "dormitory", which based on the context I don't think is the case here. Any ideas on what was intended? [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 09:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Try searching under dormitory town. Loads of links (note the spelling). Icundell 09:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have fixed the spelling in the article Icundell
- Aha. I didn't know what a dormitory town was, or that there was such a thing. It seems to be a primarily British term which is probably why. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 10:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia also has articles for both dormitory town and bedroom community. ~leif
- They are sometimes known as commuter towns. People live there, but don't work there. Icundell 10:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Aha. I didn't know what a dormitory town was, or that there was such a thing. It seems to be a primarily British term which is probably why. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 10:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Planned settlement
I concur that New town is a bit problematic, but think Planned city and Planned community are also, because 'city' and 'community' are both imprecise terms, just as 'town' is.
How about Planned settlement? A settlement is where people settle - town, city or village. It also has the advantage that things like the US Model cities program could be comfortably encompassed.
Thoughts? Icundell 10:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No. One of the wikipedia rules is to put things where people will find them. People will not look for an article on planned settlements. They might look for New town or planned city or possibly planned community. Redirect should take care of anyone's problems finding stuff, but planned settlement seems awfully jargony and academic. dml 18:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What part of the word 'settlement' is jargony or academic? Icundell 18:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe settlement is just to ambiguous. The word, afaik, can refer to a township, a colonial settlement, a farm, a housing estate, a fief, etc. Anywhere people settle is a settlement. Therefore, though the word is not jargony (sic) or academic it is not useful as a descriptive term for the purposes of the article. jggouvea 14:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Move discussion
The following discussion is being moved from WP:RM. There is no consensus to move the article.
- See note on Talk:New town ~leif ☺ HELO 21:01, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Like some of the participants on the discussion on the Talk:New town page, I see no pressing reason or urgency for the move. Any confusion over the popularity of terms are solved by the redirects. The redirects work, directing anyone who wants Planned city and Planned community to New town. As the old adage goes, if it ain't broke...' In agreement with a few of the comments left by participants on the talk page, the term "new town" seems more prevalent than the more academic/ivory tower "planned city." Ergo, objection. —ExplorerCDT 20:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. "New town" is quite ambiguous, whereas "planned city" refers quite clearly to what the article is about. I'm not sure I've ever heard "new town" used to refer to the idea of a planned city; a ridiculous number of settlements in the world are named something like "new town" or "new city" in some language, most of which are not planned cities. (Novgorod immediately springs to mind...) —Tkinias 22:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To make it 'official', Oppose (object seems so confrontational), because I see no pressing need for it. 'New town' is in common usage, the redirects get the job done and a substantial majority of links into the page come via that term or very similar terms. Further, since the concept as it is used today came out of the New town movement, it more accurately reflects its theoretical roots. I would also strongly oppose breaking the article up, as suggested on its talk page. The time might come, but it's not here yet. Icundell 01:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thinking on it further, if it is moved I would argue that Planned settlement is much the best option, since that covers any form of place created from scratch - city, town or village. It is a properly generic term, free of any sort of bias. I maintain opposition to this proposal and to breaking up the article (as unwarranted fragmentation), but would probably back a move to Planned Settlement (also the re-directs would be a lot more straightforward, wouldn't they?) Icundell 11:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. As per previous post, although I think probably a situation of having both a new town and planned city page would be best (they are different concepts really, though related. See motorway and freeway for example). zoney ♣ talk 03:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose too - I've said on the talk page that there could be two separate articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Maybe "New Town" is used by some people, but here in Canada, I have never heard it used. Ever. SECProto 15:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Folks, I think what we have here is another US-UK thing, just with Canada coming down on the US side for a change ;). I just reread the article and realized that "New Town" is an official usage in the UK (New Towns Act). I still maintain that the term is ambiguous, but I think we need to recognize that the reason for the disagreement has a lot to do with differing trans-Atlantic usage. I like Icundell's proposal of Planned settlement as the best, most generic term. The first city cited is Washington, D.C., which (by U.S. standards *grin*) is not a particularly new town; it also mentions colonial-era American cities, which would be the oldest ones in the hemisphere. Therefore New town is a bit misleading. The article does not, BTW, currently have enough "meat" to warrant fragmentation IMO. —Tkinias 19:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term is used in the UK exclusively to refer to sub-city level towns run by a planning committee or (in the case of Cramlington and perhaps one or two others) a local borough council, developed after WWII to deal with population overspill from large cities. There is a lot of room for organic growth--the history of the New Towns in the UK at least is a very significant part of the urbanization of the English countryside. There is no need for a move. Keep the section of the article that applies to these developments in its present place and pop the other, conceptually different, material into Planned city instead of the current redirect to New town. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was born in a New Town and although some of the London overspill 'New Town's were planned, not all of them were (mostly it was a designation) and they certainly weren't 'cities'. The term also has legal sense in that there was a commission for the New Towns which chose where they should be, etc. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for many of the reasons said above. To reiterate, a new town is actually a reference to a planning concept which can be (and has been) applied to urban areas on either sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. It is not so much on whether the urban area is "new" or not, or whether the urban area is a "town" or a "city". This page might be of some use to those unfamiliar with the term "new town" as a concept: The Garden City and New Town Movements--Huaiwei 18:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Car plant in East Kilbride?
Not sure what the reference here was meant to be - there has never (as far as I know) been a car manufacturer in East Kilbride. Is this confusion with another New Town (though I don't think any of the other Scottish New Towns have a car plant), or confusion about the Rolls Royce plant in East Kilbride (which is for aero engines)? Also implies East Kilbride is a second generation New Town rather than first generation (1947). Reference removed as inaccurate.
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro was not the former capital of Brazil. Salvador was it. --200.234.90.64 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it was. Brazil has had three different capitals over its history: Salvador, from 1554 to 1808, Rio de Janeiro from 1808 to 1960 and Brasilia, since 1960. Check History of Brazil. jggouvea 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
New Towns (planned cities) in India
Sorry if this is not relevant to the wiki, just wanted to vent my frustration at the lack of planned cities in India. Its ironic that Indus valley civilization had planned cities, good sewage system etc. There is urgent need of planned cities in India, because existing cities suffer following problems
- Systematic planning and law enforcement (lack of)
Perhaps, many city municipalities never expected that so many people will own automobiles (because they are not invented in India). This is evident from lack of enough parking spaces in front of shops, restaurants, government offices, railway stations. People have NO choice but to park on the streets, adding to the road congestion. The market places are overcrowded due to narrow roads and insufficient space, with high risk of stampedes.
Why are small shops are allowed on two sides of roads, thats so stupid. Small shop owners cannot afford to have parking space for their customers, so they should come together in a mall with enought parking space.
- Environment
Rivers have becomes sewage channels, pollution levels are high due to congested traffic, lack of parks.
- Sewage system
Many roads do not have required share (inverted V), so water just accumulates
- Roads
No concern for pedestrians, and bicycle riders. Roads are too narrow.
I do NOT want to generalize, so above comments are only based on my experiences in following cities:
- Pune [See Swargate bus stand, Pune railway station, pune municipal corp office, river mula, muta]
- Kolkata [See sector 5, Salt lake, road are too narrow compared to number of buildings]
- Chennai [Tirumai Pillai road]
- Mumbai [See news reports about casualities last year due to heavy rain and lack of sophisticated sewage system ]
To be fair there are few planned cities, some of them are mentioned in the article. I would be glad to hear about new town (planned cities) projects in India. Ideas, suggestions are welcome.
Useless
This article doesn't even talk about the King Abdullah Economic City, arguably the largest planned city ever. Scott 110 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)