Talk:New Urbanism

message: Wikipedia is not a good format for an open source listing of new urban projects. Here's why.
Debates about what does and does not constitute new urbanism have been ongoing since the Congress for the New Urbanism was founded and its charter was written. Widespread discussions about a rigorous appraisal or certification scheme have been ongoing at least since 2000. There's a lot of intractable disagreement about a number of critical issues -- what factors to measure and how to weight them. The issue has become more pressing as numerous developers and marketers adopt the new urbanism moniker without necessarily including new urbanist principles in the design of their projects. 
Therefore, a Wikipedia list of projects will be subject to endless disagreement, revisions, and appeals. Furthermore, it is duplicating the existing lists and databases which have the benefit of years of development, fairly consistent standards and resources for updating and maintenance.
However, there is still a great need for an open source evaluation of neighborhood quality. Open source taps into the wisdom of crowds, and avoids the flaws of top-down administration.
One good way to accomplish this would be a rating system that rates neighborhoods on a selection of characteristics. Since there is so much disagreement on rating criteria, the user could choose the investigators whose ratings they wish to see and to average together. And anyone could be an investigator; they simply would need to spell out the criteria they use.
It's going to take some resources and software development/customization to put this into practice, but it's the only productive way to accomplish open source neighborhood ratings.
LaurenceJA 15:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm much more pragmatic about this. If there is such a thing as "New Urbanism", then we should list some projects which could be categorized as such. Ofcourse there can be (endless) discussions on what makes a project fall into such a category, but we don't need to list all possible NU projects, just a few clear case ones to make this article more complete. NU is mainly about changing 'traditional' late 20th century, western, urban planning habits, and as such is an evolving movement rooted in Urban Planning traditions. NU is part of an ongoing cultural change in the way the western 'building industry/governments' perceive good/better urban environments, something that has been going on for many decades already. "Neighborhood quality" is something different than NU, and is a complex thing to measure in many ways. Also, the concept of quality always has some subjective elements in it, and in the case of urban planning there are many of these elements. Eg. the neighorhoods quality also depends on the people and their activities: social networking, violence/crime, gardening, pollution (trash, noise, dust), etc.. Walden 15:55, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
Yes, of course you're right about neighborhood quality. I should have said "neighborhood design and planning quality." And your description of new urbanism movement is beautiful. I can only hope the built results live up to the ideals you mention. In some cases they do; in some they do not.
How are we (Wikipedia users) going to agree which developments can be characterized as new urbanism? There have been several already listed that I do not consider to be representative of CNU charter principles.  At any rate, it would be better to mention significant projects in their historical context. I have asked the author of an excellent, comprehensive “About New Urbanism” article for permission to reprint it in the Wikipedia. LaurenceJA 03:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I obtained copyright release from Robert Steuteville to post his article in Wikipedia. I hope that the authorship attribution meets Wikipedia standards -- I've styled it like a citation.LaurenceJA 22:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing Projects 

message: Some writers have stated that transit-oriented development (TOD) and traditional neighborhood development (TND) are two different camps; however, this is factually incorrect. In practice, new urbanist designers employ the same principles whether or not transit service is available to a particular location. Of course, it is always preferable that convenient transit be provided to new urbanist developments, but the lack of transit is not a make-or-break condition, and certainly does not indicate a failure. This is according to the mainstream, prevailing principles of new urbanism as derived from sources such as the CNU Charter, the practice of leading firms, and academic studies. LaurenceJA 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TND and TOD 

message: Is "New Urbanism" really capitalized that way in all references to it?  That would seem to be a tad unusual for terms like that. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 23:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It varies by writer, but capitalization of the term is becoming less common. A publications firm I work with uses the rules of the "Associated Press Stylebook," and based on that they do not capitalize new urbanism.LaurenceJA 02:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a redirect from other capitalazations. If EVERYONE starts using lower case, we could consider moving the page accoringly. For now, it's fine. As for references, use the grammar used by the author. HereToHelp 12:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: I ran across this Smartcode on Duany Plater-Zyberk website.  It looks like a model planning code but I'm not an architect.  Would this have any use in putting in the article, or is it too proprietary?  Maybe a better option is to mention some examples of info obtained from a review of the code.  Smartcode 7.0 PDF File 7Mb
:As I understand it, the SmartCode is indeed a proprietary product: a "form-based" model code for cities to adopt, replacing their previous zoning codes.  A local New Urbanist planning firm installed the Central Petaluma SmartCode in Petaluma, California, in 2004:  Newspaper stories implied that the Smartcode may not be consistent with California planning law.  -- Mukrkrgsj 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smartcode, what is it?

message: For "collectivist plot" reference, see Freedom 21 Santa Cruz. See also Thoreau Institute editorial that conflates new urbanism and Soviet planning. For representative example of "capitalistic excess" charge, see Mike Davis' widely-disseminated feature in Mother Jones magazine. For examples of "good instantly" criticisms, see evaluations of newly-built new urbanist developments by Wendell Cox, Alex Marshall and Michael Sorkin, among many others. LaurenceJA 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed two of the criticisms; they were unsourced and seemed to be very "out there", as if the writer was channelling Ayn Rand and Mao Zedong. --Bletch 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean they were unsourced? I provided the sources above. Check them out. LaurenceJA 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laurence, I like the contributions.  Could you source them in the article itself? Ed Sanville 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Men

message: I have proposed changing the name of :Category:New Urbanism. My best alternative is Sustainable urban planning or Sustainable urban design but perhaps there is something more suitable.
See discussion at Category talk:New Urbanism. (Don't respond here) --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change category name from New Urbanism to... 

message: I think we should find a more attractive image to use as an example of New Urbanism.  The building architecture in the current photo leaves much to be desired, IMO.  I'm certain there are better examples to use.  (Also, what is that trailer doing out front?  Is this example still under construction?) Ed Sanville 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Would it be accurate to note that many of the tenets of New Urbanism were inspired by (or at least foreshadowed by) Sale's Human Scale? It certainly seems that way to me, but I don't have significant domain expertise here. Tlesher 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Scale

message: Do we really need that section? Why not spin it off into a list article? The article already has a lot that aren't in that section --AW 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects by state? 

message: I had made some earlier edits to this article, but the whole thing has seemed problematic from a European persepctive. New Urbanism has been seen as very much an American phenomenon (and one can look to various US architects, activists and theorists, such as Jacobs, Sales, and so on, who have attempted to champion what can be regarded as typical historical European urban models). So what may be called "New Urbanism" in USA, may simply be "urbanism" in Europe. This is hardly to say that Modernism has not decimated European cities and even become a standard model for planing in many European countries (e.g. former east bloc): and so, in Europe, too, many of these lessons are now being re-learnt -- ironically somewhat making pastiches of their previous living traditions. It is somewhat unfortunate that as it stands the examples are given as USA, followed by the individual US states and then "the rest of the world".  --TTKK 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I believe it is largely a result of how much of America's development has occurred during the automobile age.  As stated, Britain has some notable programs that could be equated to New Urbanism, as does Australia -- another location whose growth has largely occurred during the automobile age.  --Thisisbossi 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Urbanism - a US phenomenon? 

message: I agree, this is an American phenomenon. It's responding to American circumstances. That's why all the conferences have been held in the United States. We should delete the template on the bottom section about it not representing a "worldwide view". NittyG (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Indeed, Deleted "Worldwide View" Template?

message: I think we need to clean up that list. It's awfully big --AW 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of examples 

message: How can this article be considered to be of "top importance"?
If there is any genuine substance to The New Urbanism, why haven't its proponents produced a readable Wikipedia page that clearly defines and explains it?
Is it a theory and philosophy of urban planning, or just an excuse for continuous, unmitigated growth and development?
Mukrkrgsj 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the article is not in very good shape. For a clear overview, visit the website of the Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/). Continuous, unmitigated growth and development in the USA doesn't make any excuses for itself, and it doesn't have too, since it has the law on its side. Given that it will take sea change in the law, in people's attitudes towards taxes and property rights, and in the economic foundation of the country before there is a healthly approach to the development of land, New Urbanism is the best thing we have to ensure that new development is not awful. But blaming New Urbanism for growth is preposterous. The overwhelming majority of new developments (I would guess well over 95%) continue to be the standard cul de sac, segregated use, 100% auto-dependent suburbia.Sylvain1972 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is unreadable

message: I'm thinking of deleting this section. It seems to be added by someone from Simpler Times Village, the link in the section. The drawing Image:Aerial-Perspective-artist-d.jpg, which I removed, was hand drawn by User:Villagemaker, and is also the same one from the Simpler Times website. I suspect they created that section as an ad. There may be a valid thing called New Ruralism, but it needs some real sources. --AW 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Ruralism? 

message: I substituted the recent "unreferenced" tag with the more appropriate template. Some parts of the article are clearly referenced, and the "References" section is rather big. However, I would agree that essay-like parts need referencing badly. --Futurano 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreferenced" claim 

message: Umm, rather than an element of nostalgia for a pre industrial age, isn't it more for the late 19th century, the time of wonderful new inventions such as streetcar suburbs and bicycles?  Thus, post industrial nostalgia for an industrial age?  Jim.henderson 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-industrial

message: Would this be considered a form of New Urbanism? Marcus1234 12:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tigne Point

message: Undisputed changes were lost in the shuffle.  I'll revert the change, then resurrect the original see-also list. 68.165.76.202 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion by 12.218.199.245 excessive and described inaccurately 

message: I find the following paragraph to be more editorial than educational; note particularly the perjorative phrase "lego projects":
<BR>
<BR>
It is very unlikely that the members of this congress have a comprehensive understanding of the real effects of New Urbanist "lego projects" on the people that live within them. These effects are not always positive. New Columbia If grassroots participation is not the scaffolding of the New Urbanist model of mixed-income development, which it is not, the projects will suffer lack of cohesion. Until high-level bureaucracies such as HUD and HOPE VI make great efforts to build a common sense of identity through participatory planning, there will be no essential foundation of social stability upon which to construct new buildings. 
<BR>
<BR>
I suggest this passage be deleted, since I can imagine no way of revising it to remove its biases (because the entire passage is an opinion).  --Skb8721 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Problem in One Particular Passage

message: The New Urbanist preference for 'permeable' street grids has been criticised on the grounds that it gives private motor vehicles an advantage over walking, cycling and public transport.
i suggest removing this part, this grid street system is clearly much more advantageous to walking, biking and transit that hierarchical streets.
there are some criticisms listed that are just random baseless charges against the new urbanism (like calling it fascist), we need to filter out these and strengthen the the major and most common criticisms of the movement mainly that some view it as old fashioned, that some communities are still quite autodependent, some NIMBYs finding it too dense, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxstreetcar (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whats this?

message: I think there needs to be more mention about the issue and role of architectural style in new urbanism, people seem to think new urbanism=traditional architecture. Certainly a lot of NU projects use traditional architecture but there are a good number of projects that either have a mix of styles or are modernist and the CNU charter is specific in stating that NU not be style specific.
Also I think it is worth having a section on 'Urban New Urbanism' or large scale urban infill projects that employ new urbanist principles like Hoyt Street Yards/Pearl District in Portland, South Lake Union in Seattle, South Waterfront in Portland, Yaletown/Concord pacific in Vancouver BC, LoDo in Denver, Victory Park in Dallas, Capital Center/Waterplace Park in Providence, South Boston Waterfront in Boston, Mission Bay in San Francisco, to name a few.
Pdxstreetcar (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: adding a section about style issues and urban new urbanism

message: Does merging Congress for the New Urbanism into this article look like a good idea? I think that most of the material is already here. Comments? --Stormbay (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: This "variant of New Urbanism" seems to be just one individual, whose personal Wikipedia entry was recently nominated for deletion. Even if it were a notable school of thought with many disciples, it doesn't deserve mention within the first five sentences of an article about New Urbanism. Even under the person listing -- he's the only person not on that list who isn't either extensively published (on topics relating to urban design) or honored as a Fellow of the AIA. Paytonc (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael E. Arth / New Pedestrianism 

message: I just got done browsing the New Urbanism wikipedia page and I see nothing there regarding the ADVANTAGES of new urbanism.  It was mentioned that the New Urban design philosophies are about human-scale enviroments and walkable communities, but these descriptions come off looking like industry jargon.  The average Joe aint going to know what that means in layman's terms.  These terms should be extrapolated.
What about all the advantages inherent in human-scale enviroments and walkable communities?  For example:
1) More walking means a healthier citizenship.  If you ain't driving to the nearby Wendy's, but instead you are walking there... you might just have enough walking distance between your house and the local Wendy's to burn off any excess calories gained from your cheeseburger.  With driving (urban sprawl) those calories would just end up in your rear end.
2) Healthier citizens means less time at the doctor and lower medical bills.  Good health also promotes increased self-esteem and self-confidence.  It also may mean fewer suicides and domestic disputes.
3) Reduced driving time also decreases automobile accidents.  This means fewer automobile fatalities and fewer patients in the hospital to care for (for those who survive violent car crashes).  More money saved.
4) Reduced driving time cuts back on the amount of gasoline and/or alternative energy needed to fuel automobiles.  This saves money individually and nationally.  IMPORTANT.
5) Walkable communities promote increased social interactions.  This reduces crime rates and reduces social isolation, which lends itself to happier citizens and an overall improvement in mental well being.
6) High density NU communities also reduces municipality requirements and highway construction costs.  This is due to a more efficient and elegant use space.
These are some of the main points, I would guess.  Perhaps they could even be ellaborated upon.  In any case, if there is going to be a CRITICISMS catagory, there should be an ADVANTAGES catagory in my opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.142.246 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Urbanism Advantages 

message: Although I generally prefer criticism sections (and even "Trivia Sections") in articles, I believe that this one is way over-the-top in being negative and excessive.  In fact, it makes it seem that nearly everyone is staunchly opposed to New Urbanism, ranging from conservatives/libertarians to far-leftists and anarcho-primitivists.  It sounds (reads) like this article has mainly been edited repeatedly by persons diametrically opposed to it who are willing to use any and all arguments against it.  I admit that I come to this topic out of near total ignorance, but I find it incredible (unbelievable) that there is really almost no support for this (New Urbanism)---academic or otherwise---from any middle-of-the-road or more moderate/mainstream "liberal" and pro-environmental interests, whether in the establishment or more counter-establishment.  These issues really need to be addressed.  Shanoman (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should outline significant criticisms of the topic, but shouldn't give an undue weight to one side or another.  Is there some information mentioned in the criticism that you think is exaggerated, unfair or insufficiently supported?  TastyCakes (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much criticism 

message: Though this article is in need of a general cleanup, one place to start would be a consideration of the prominence of "New Pedestrianism." New Pedestrianism is not a significant subdivision of New Urbanism, unlike TOD or TND. Seemingly all of the references about New Pedestrianism can be traced back to Michael E. Arth, its founder. This is inconsistent with WP:NOR, and unless someone wants to make the case that New Pedestrianism is, as the article seems to suggest in its current form, a significant part of NU, I'm going to scale back its role to fit its limited impact on the New Urbanist movement.
LDNash (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I think it's part and parcel of the same thing. The very beginning mentions walkable neighborhoods, for example. Some references should be ok. You really didn't remove very much at all. --AW (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You're right, the differences aren't particularly great. But New Pedestrianism is an uncommon way of discussing and treating space that isn't used very often by New Urbanists. Considering both its similarity to NU and its small base, I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning in the intro. On that note, actually, the next thing I'm going to follow up on some of the edits you made and work on cleaning up the intro. It's too long as it is right now, and some of the info can be moved down into other sections. I may edit the caption for the picture you put back in as well. I can't find the term "walk street" in any New Urbanist literature or online.LDNash (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Maybe just pedestrian street. --AW (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pedestrianism 

message: This section is pretty lackluster as it stands. It only discusses the neighborhood scale and lacks citations. I think the best way to go about redoing this section is to use the scales referenced in the New Urbanism charter: region, neighborhood, street/building. I'd guess most of the information in this section can be based off of the charter, perhaps with some references to examples. It is, after all, basically a "defining elements" section in itself.
LDNash (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Elements section 

message: The full sentence: "Some libertarians and Conservatives view new urbanism as a collectivist plot designed to rob Americans of their civil freedoms, property rights, and free-flowing traffic."
This is cited as the source:
* "Plan Obsolescence," Reason, June 1998
I'm reading the whole thing.  It doesn't once contain the word collectivist.  Yes, it's in a libertarian magazine, Reason (magazine), but that's not what the article says.  The article is more subtle than this...it's not some nutcase libertarian propaganda.  The article is critical of conservatives at the American Enterprise Institute as well as the traditional liberals who push new urbanism.  I'm going to rework this sentence (and possibly this whole section) to be more neutral and more accurately reflect what the article actually says.  Cazort (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a collectivist plot designed to rob Americans of their civil freedoms..." 

message: I removed this paragraph as it was unsourced, I'm pasting it here in case anyone wants to find sources to salvage it:
*"Perhaps the most frequent criticism of the movement  is that the most famous and highest-profile projects most associated with the movement (primarily Celebration, Kentlands, and Seaside) are all greenfield projects built on what was previously open space and therefore are just another form of sprawl. (The city of Hercules on the other hand is developing its New Urbanism communities on brownfields.) Other projects like Stapleton (Denver), the Pearl District (Portland) and Glenwood Park (Atlanta) are all newer brownfield projects that are all beginning to undermine this long standing criticism. Critics react to this as a controlled sprawl that assumes that social situations can and should also be controlled, such that preconceived rules of what a town need be are first worked out on paper and then acted out in real space. Often the results are elitist and exclusionary, and are almost always conservative in nature. "
Thanks. Cazort (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: more cleanup

message: Can we please get a new picture for (the top of) this article? It's a terrible representation of what the New Urbanism is. And, more than that, new pictures for the article throughout? There are some really terrible ones here. Pretty much all of them need to be replaced. Someone new to the concept would walk away from this article having no real understanding of what new urbanism is from these pictures. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what replacing the pictures entails exactly; copyrights-wise. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I'm removing the line, "Although the current use of non-mixed ghettoed social housing projects have been a dismal failure..." It's marked with a "citation needed," but quite frankly, there is no citation that anyone can provide that supports any statement such as this as definitively, empirically, and obviously true. If data shows it to be a "failure," then it should say (with a citation), "recent data/sociologists/someone-specific-with-authority-on-the-topic show(s) that the current use of non-mixed, ghetto social housing projects have been unsuccessful. [citation to that data/report on data/etc]" While Conservapedia.com likes to think that statements like this are simply "truisms" that ought not be questioned, this is just laden with personal-opinion-as-truth. It's gone.24.59.177.38 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Removal 

message: : The Cotton District got its name because it is built in an area that surrounds an old cotton mill.
"an area" is hopelessly vague; I'd make it either it surrounds an old cotton mill or it is near an old cotton mill, depending on whether the Cotton District itself surrounds the mill. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton District 

message: I think urban renaissance and new urbanism cover the same ground.  Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery.  It seems kind of like the former article is specifically about the UK, but that's not enough grounds for a separate article. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose these are distinct terms with different meaning. The assertions of similarities between the two terms made in the urban renaissance article are unreferenced. --ELEKHHT 01:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose The urban renaissance page references a general social trend, whereas new urbanism refers to a developed design philosophy, which is distinct from population movement to cities.--Sbrowndc (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Even if an urban renaissance was solely the result of new urbanist policies, it makes sense to separate a design philosophy from its results. Fitnr (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose Tebici (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: "Prospect New Town in Longmont, Colorado, showing a mix of aggregate housing and traditional detached homes"
aggregate housing has no wikipedia page nor clear definition when googled, perhaps the word "townhouse" or "apartment building" would be more accurate?
80.5.128.19 (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture caption error 

message: the link to "traditional neighborhood design" is useless, as it redirects back to New Urbanism. 216.67.27.126 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursion 

message: I propose that Mountain House be removed from the examples list.
Mountain House is not walkable and has very few amenities.
Picking a random address inside of Mountain House we see that it has a walkscore of 6/100:
https://www.walkscore.com/score/97+Ameno+Ln+Mountain+House+CA+95391/lat=37.771725/lng=-121.54746
The section states that "In addition, a future train station, transit center and bus system are planned for Mountain House."
There is no reference for this and I can't find anything online to support this statement.
The nearest train station is the ACE train station in Tracy, CA - 11 miles away from Mountain House (certainly not walkable).
Mountain House Residents are currently petitioning ACE Train to add a stop at Patterson Pass Road - but that would still be 5 miles from Mountain House.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealWillMartin (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Mountain House 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on New Urbanism. 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/20141023010313/http://www.newpartners.org/about/about-the-event to http://www.newpartners.org/about/about-the-event
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014174711/http://www.cnu.org/leednd to http://www.cnu.org/leednd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001092432/http://www.chesterfieldtwp.com/Smart%20Growth/smartgrowthpage.html to http://www.chesterfieldtwp.com/Smart%20Growth/smartgrowthpage.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117025306/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj06/indepth/communities.asp to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj06/indepth/communities.asp
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) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Urbanism. 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/20160611102029/http://www.botsfor.no/publikasjoner/litteratur/new%20urbanism/new%20urbanism%20and%20the%20city%20by%20charles%20bohl.pdf to http://www.botsfor.no/publikasjoner/litteratur/new%20urbanism/new%20urbanism%20and%20the%20city%20by%20charles%20bohl.pdf
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) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Urbanism. 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/20140625234557/http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Canons.pdf to http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Canons.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412172431/https://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/del-mar-station-2007 to https://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/del-mar-station-2007
*Added  tag to http://www.jeunesarchi.com/
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) 10:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This article is full of non factual attempts to “define” this topic.   Pleas remove the irrelevant and nonfactual references 2601:584:101:B0D0:148F:AFD2:41C9:E29 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluff 

message: — Assignment last updated by Danimilkweed (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Landscape Restoration

message: is CNU worthy of its own article? Doug Grinbergs (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congress for the New Urbanism CNU