Talk:Built environment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Percent of buildings designed by architects

"less than 15% of buildings constructed annually in the western world are designed by architects"

What is the source of the 15% figure? I have seen figures much lower, like 3%. --Erauch 02:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Bosphorus Bridge Night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bosphorus Bridge Night.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not broad enough

By its lead, this article focuses on the term "built environment." It should thus discuss the way the term "built environment" is used in academia. Necessarily, this includes examples of what studies consider well-designed or poorly-designed built environments, but the article currently focus too much on sustainable development topics advocated by people that study the built environment, which is logically separate. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tikvah17's rewrite

User:Tikvah17's rewrite of the article for a school assignment is appreciated in spirit, but in practice it's stripping out all of the article's wikilinks, introducing its own knowingly-unsourced content (new sentences ending in "[source?]"), adding broken footnotes and bizarrely concatenating some double-Fs, such as turning "effort" into "effort". Has this been copypasted from a word processing document?

Either way, this is not yet ready for prime time. I've suggested on the user's talk page that they either edit incrementally or work up a proper sandbox draft, but they've just pasted the broken content in again. --McGeddon (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to my revisions. I have saved a copy of the pre-edited page and will restore hyperlinks when I am done. The addition of the "[source]" notation is just a reminder to myself that I need to add the source. I don't know what you mean about the double-Fs. I have not consciously changed anything of that sort.

PLEASE, PLEASE stop undoing my edits before I have a chance to complete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikvah17 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Like I say, if you're working on a draft it's better to do that somewhere else and then put it live all in one go. The current page is live on the internet, and we're not doing our readers any favours by temporarily (even if only for hours) giving them a less useful version of the article. If you're actively working on it, though, I'll put up an under-construction template.

The penultimate paragraph of "History" currently begins "The effort was in partnership with others...", and "Public health" opens with "Neighborhood design can affect..." - not sure why it would just be those two while the other double-Fs are unaffected. --McGeddon (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Since User:Tikvah17 is now actively working on a rewrite of the article at Draft:Built environment instead of here, I've dialled this article back to the previous version and removed the "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring." template. We can paste the new version in when it's finished. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Broaden scope and adjust focus

I agree with Knight of Truth's comment from 2015. The meaning of "built environment" itself is under-explained and focus is given instead to conversations about the built environment in the public health field. I would recommend expanding or rewriting the lead, history, and modern built environment sections so that base knowledge of the concept is established before delving into more specific examples. The first sentence is also a close paraphrase of the first Google result for "built environment" and is not cited as such, which makes me question the validity of the citations. Echoing Knight of Truth again, more attention should be paid to academia.

The public health section has a lot of good information that I think could be distributed. For example, walkability has a larger range of effects beyond public health (e.g. accessibility of schools, public transit, social connectivity). That info could be placed in a broader section, or even given its own header and expanded in more directions than just public health.

As for the rest of the article, I think the focus needs to be adjusted to support the core information. The public health section should be shortened and the landscape architecture section should be expanded, and other relevant examples should be included to round out the scope. Overall, the subsections should give equal weight to the examples that show the breadth of the built environment and how it is incorporated in every aspect of the man-made world. Emilyp99 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Adondai (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision Plans and References

I made some general comments above, and I've now begun some research to start working on this page. The built environment is often discriminatory against minorities or people of low-income, which I'd like to highlight. Check out my user page for more thoughts and a list of sources I'd like to use, and feel free to comment on my talk page! Emilyp99 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not get the chance to edit this page last fall, but will be working on it this spring. I plan to expand on the definition of the built environment and its history in urban development, as well as round out its impact in various fields. I will make sure that all examples are relevant and link directly back to the focus of the article without getting tangential. Check out my user page for my revision plan, and comment on my talk page if you have any questions/comments. Emilyp99 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the addition of “Prominent features of the built environment” sections were very useful and clarified some information, as well as brought some aspects of social justice into the article. I also think the restructuring and adding physical activity to a new section titled “Impact on the built environment” was a good idea. I know that more additions to the article will be made, but I would focus on expanding the housing and segregation section, and the public health section. I also believe that it is very important to make sure that the information you add fits in with what is already there to prevent redundancy and to create a flow of ideas. Overall, great job and keep up the good work -Angelalin79 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I wanted to offer some feedback I identified after completing a peer-review of this article. As a whole, it does a great job of providing more comprehensive insight into the concept of the Built Environment and does a wonderful job of highlighting intersectionality throughout it as well. This article could be potentially improved by expanding on a more global perspective and potentially restructuring the “Prominent features…” section to reduce redundancy. Asmaley (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)