Category talk:New Urbanism

We must change the category name - but change it to what?

I believe Category:New Urbanism is misnamed. Topics such as Smart Growth is a related idea, not a topic within the field of New Urbanism. Other articles such as Transit-oriented development, Urban village, Ecovillage and Village Homes should be put in the same category, but are not subtopics of New Urbanism.

I propose moving this category. But before agreeing or opposing, what's a better name? I suggest either:

• Category:Sustainable urban planning or
• Category:Sustainable urban design. See discussion at Category talk:New Urbanism.

Of course, whether these are really "sustainable" is open to debate. The category page should state something like:

This category includes styles of urban planning (and advocates and examples of those styles) that are intended to be more sustainable than conventional planning.

Any other suggestions? Is there a broader term that encompasses these various approaches? --Singkong2005 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No precedent for name change

I don't see precedent for this name change. New Urbanism is a design movement and a phrase that is very alive in journals, classrooms, and industry discussion. I believe the definition of what New Urbanism is or isn't is still a topic that is very much alive and open, and hasn't quite gelled yet.

New Urbanism claims ownership to any, all, or none of those things you list, depending on who you ask.

Part of my concern is that among those who believe in medium density, mixed use, reducing car-usage, etc, not everyone identifies as New Urbanist. Some are actually quite negative. One complaint I've heard boils down to it being urban design rather than urban planning. The people I've spoken to (in the Australian urban planning scene) seemed to take umbrage at people claiming these ideas as "New Urbanist" when largely they're not unique or even totally new to that movement. Professional jealousy I suspect, and it did strike me as silly... and I'm not proposing that as a reason to change the category name. But I think it's a best not to put things into "New Urbanism" which don't relate directly to that specific movement, and especially those which don't have design as a main emphasis. (e.g. does Peter Calthorpe identify himself as "New Urbanist"? If not, I would move that article into the parent category (discussed below), along with Smart growth. --Singkong2005 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Calthorpe is a founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism and continues to serve as a board member of the organization. LaurenceJA 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're attempting to make a category that lumps things together based on their (objective) sustainability. Am I correct?

No, it must be explicit that it's based on their intended sustainability. Otherwise we have to make judgements about which is sustainable - i.e. we're making commentary or original research, depending how you look at it. Not suitable for Wikipedia.

I believe you're on to something, because I don't believe New Urbanism is neccessarily about sustainability. However, I don't believe the solution involves messing with this Category, however. I don't know if a solution is even possible until practitioners and debate narrows and sorts what is or isn't New Urbanism.

I see some room for the possibility of making Category:Sustainable urban design a parent or child of Category: New Urbanism, however, the burden will be on you to fill it with other examples which are clearly distinct from New Urbanism. This will be tough because the lines are not well defined yet.Yeago 19:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll not change the category, but I'll create a parent. As I understand it, urban planning is a broader term than urban design, so I plan to create Category:Sustainable urban planning. (I'll leave it a few days in case there are comments). Yes, it will be tough, but I hope we have good will on the part of the various contributors, in which case it should go well. --Singkong2005 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)