Talk:List of planned cities

message: The list seems too broad in some places. By including places like Tokyo and Miletus, it seems to include "any city whose form has been affected by planning". This is too inclusive. I suggest:
::Any city whose overall form (as opposed to individual neighborhoods or expansions) has been determined in large part in advance on a drawing board, or which was planned to a degree which is unusual for its time and place. --erauch 15:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the above definition to the page in the interest of guiding future additions, though quite a few of the current entries do not meet it. --erauch 15:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all a bit arbitrary at some level, however Miletus should be included (early example of intentional layout of grid street pattern and location of land uses), see Hippodamus.
dml 16:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: This discussion dearly needs to be revitalised.  Currently, this list is an indiscriminate collection with no verification, and in that sense can be subject for deletion.  Of course, I do not want it deleted; nor would many whom would be here to read this.  That said, I suggest that every development in this list be properly referenced with something that properly attributes it to be a planned development.  We may also wish to convert this into a table, with a column for the development name, city (might be the same as the development name), state/province/commune/region, nation, designer (Howard, Rouse, etc.), the year of design completion, the year of development completion, and anything else people suggest.  If there are no objections, I will in the interim tag every single one that does not have a Wiki article with , and will begin reverting any new additions that are not referenced. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: Tapiola is not a city. It's a residential and commercial area within the city of Espoo. Should it still be included?  — JIP | Talk 07:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tapiola 

message: I disagree with most of these cities being listed here. Eger, for example, is a typical old settlement formed around a medieval castle, with a historical downtown and all. I'd say the same about Sopron. Kazincbarcika, Salgótarján and Tatabánya were created by the unification of several small towns in places where the Socialist government needed new industrial cities; the population of these cities grew fast, because of the job opportunities that were provided there, but I don't think it means that the cities themselves were planned, they were just artificially turned into cities from small towns.
Of all these cities only Tiszaújváros and Dunaújváros (and maybe Oroszlány, at least acc. their website – I'm not familiar with this town) could be classified as planned cities, both were planned and built within a few years. The rest are definitely not planned. It's quite likely that each of them was completely destroyed and built again several times during their history, but actually it's true to almost all the Hungarian cities, towns and villages, still not all of them are included here.
See the articles of the cities for more details. – Alensha 18:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned cities in Hungary

message: Is Runcorn really a planned city? Neng5 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Runcorn

message: EPCOT is obviously a theme park, and not a city.  Should the link be included simply because of the intent of the original design?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.222.150.163 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: EPCOT

message: Much of the discussion above could be obviated if reputable sources were included for each entry, of if the linked WP article had a source within them that would merit inclusion on this list. If you don't think a city belongs here, then just remove it and see if anybody objects and if that person can provide a source for inclusion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of planned cities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160118112330/http://www.san-vnf.fr/ to http://www.san-vnf.fr
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of planned cities. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.san-vnf.fr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317114323/http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/ to http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on List of planned cities. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226115908/http://www.2goroda.by/main.aspx?form=content&file=472 to http://www.2goroda.by/main.aspx?form=content&file=472
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161008085417/http://san-sqy.fr/ to http://www.san-sqy.fr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716205418/http://www.san-senart.fr/ to http://www.san-senart.fr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031019084557/http://tres-cantos.org/ to http://www.tres-cantos.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015184126/http://www.sedgefield.gov.uk/ to http://www.sedgefield.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050522014019/http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/hemel-hempstead/index.htm to http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/hemel-hempstead/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224155435/http://www.easington.gov.uk/ to http://www.easington.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040726082644/http://www.halton.gov.uk/townandvillage/runcorn_new_town.asp to http://www.halton.gov.uk/townandvillage/runcorn_new_town.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318142847/http://www.westlancsdc.gov.uk/ to http://www.westlancsdc.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801033902/http://www.ballymena.gov.uk/ to http://www.ballymena.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206112223/http://www.craigavon.gov.uk/ to http://www.craigavon.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222184647/http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/ to http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It does not read as an encyclopedia Pizzapenguins (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: In England.
https://www.cambourneparishcouncil.gov.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambourne
"As part of plans to build thousands of new homes in the south-east of England, a new settlement on 400 hectares of former agricultural land, nine miles west of Cambridge, was considered in the late 1980s."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to distinguish between world-wide use and understanding of the term "city" (and "town") from the peculiarly British one. I agree that Cambourne shouldn't qualify, but because of its planned size. However, the opening sentence of the article sets no qualifying size and indeed says "or new towns". Thus, as the article stands, Cambourne does qualify. So the only way forward would be to seek consensus for a lower size limit, backed up by a list of which plans don't make the cut. Good luck with that.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is planned TOWN, not sure if  should be on list of CITIES 

message: I can find no evidence that forest lake Oregon is a planned city or evidence of it's existence. Space772 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forest Lake, Oregon not a planned city