Talk:New town

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What part of the word 'settlement' is jargony or academic? Icundell 18:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Planned settlement 

message: The following discussion is being moved from WP:RM. There is no consensus to move the article.
====New town → Planned city====
*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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Move discussion 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[New town]] → [[Planned city]]

message: Rio de Janeiro was not the former capital of Brazil. Salvador was it. --200.234.90.64 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Useless 

message: Like to add following hints for future amendments:
*Sweden: Jonsered (created by Gibson)
*Spain: Nuevo Baztán, Tres Cantos  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xauxa (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further examples 

message: I'm concerned that the article gives an incorrect impression about the history of cycle tracks in UK new towns. It says:
All the new towns featured a car-oriented layout with many roundabouts and a grid-based road system unusual in the old world. The earlier new towns, where construction was often rushed and whose inhabitants were generally plucked out of their established communities with little ceremony, rapidly got a poor press reputation as the home of "new town blues". These issues were systematically addressed in the later towns, with the third generation towns in particular devoting substantial resources to cycle routes, public transport and community facilities, as well as employing teams of officers for social development work.
That implies to me that the third-generation towns innovated in provision of cycle tracks and further that the first-generation towns made no such provision. But that's not the case. Stevenage does indeed have a lot of roundabouts - it was designed to have no cross-roads or traffic lights at all and all the roundabouts had no speed restrictions because they were designed to promote sensible speeds. Speed limits and traffic lights have only been introduced in recent years. But Stevenage also has a complete and separate system of cycle tracks and footways that cross roads via underpasses. So later towns were simply building on what had already been done in Stevenage.  Dave Howorth 91.84.180.210 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycling & UK new towns 

message: Why is there nothing on the numerous Soviet new towns of the northern USSR and Siberia? I know some of these were glorified gulags, but others are genuine towns which are still in existence. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union 

message: Hello, could someone please put the countries listed in the article in alphabetical order? That would be much appreciated! 24.232.237.191 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... they are, aren't they? Tafkam (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical order 

message: The sentence: 'Prior to this time the land that Canberra is found on was nothing more than farming land and forest.' implies they were no Aboriginal people living in the area. This is very discriminatory and racist statement and one that was adopted prior to the rights that were given to the Aborigines (1967). 'No man's Land' was a formula used by the British to take over all of the land in Australia without any consideration for the indegenious people. In Canberra region Aborigines were first living around 21,000 years ago. The land for Canberra city was basically stolen from them (as it happened with the rest of the land in Australia). Neglecting their presence in the area is highly unacceptable.
I recommend you change this sentence - and do not use old sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.39.219 (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberra 

message: well i think you should just treat any town any better than the others
you like
::I am not sure what you mean here, but if a town is in the United Kingdom, it should say so, if it is in the Republic of Ireland, it should say that. Maybe some people woould prefer it to be in a united IOreland, but as it stands, it is not. Si Trew (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[File:Headline text]]

message: Given the above discussion and the codified meaning for New Town in the UK, I'll likely create an article under :Planned community pulling information from here.  Still unanswered is how much of the material here belongs in :New towns in the United Kingdom. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I just noticed the link switch on the page Washington, D.C. I am a little late to conversation here, but it really does seem like all the information you added to Planned community should really be included under one article. A "new town" and a "planned community" are, in my mind, the same thing. Even if the term "New Town" has special distinction in the UK, that doesn't mean that a single article cannot discuss all types of similar settlement communities. May I suggest merging the information you added to PLanned community into this article? Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: As explained in the above section, planned community could refer to a group of people, so it should be planned settlement. Nev1 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 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. It seems that a second article was created simply to get around the fact that there was no consensus to change the name of this article. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is definitely a POV fork. Jeni (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No progress since March 2010. If no one objects, I'm going to merge. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text: There is a large overlap between this article and the Planned community 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 here.  No distinction between the meaning of "new town" and "planned community" is made clear.  This 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. Merge.  Dfoxvog (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned community 

message: The United Kingdom section is muddled and confusing (perhaps the result of a large number of edits), and needs a wholesale reorganisation and rewrite.  Skinsmoke (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: See Talk:Planned community.  Contribute there please.  --Jayron32 04:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion to merge or differentiate 

message: There is no section for the United States.  
On July 16, 1790, the Residence Act provided for a new permanent capital to be located on the Potomac River, the exact area to be selected by President Washington.[b] As permitted by the U.S. Constitution, the initial shape of the federal district was a square, measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side, totaling 100 square miles (260 km2). During 1791–92, Andrew Ellicott and several assistants, including Benjamin Banneker, surveyed the border of the District with both Maryland and Virginia, placing boundary stones at every mile point. Many of the stones are still standing.[10] A new "federal city" was then constructed on the north bank of the Potomac, to the east of the established settlement at Georgetown. On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington
67.166.155.113 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, User:Vegaswikian moved all of the Americas to planned community. I was myself confused my this as well and suspect that either the two should be merged in some way, or some indication should be given that that's where that continent has been moved to. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States