Talk:New town

Opening comment

Not convinced there is a strong case for it (although there is a case). New Town is the term in common usage - even the French term translates directly to new town. The term planned city does feel more 'generic', but is not used outside academia in the UK (and, speaking as a planning graduate, rarely there) and, I suspect, most of Europe. Looking at 'What links here' the vast majority seem to come via the term 'new town' - random example Tung Chung - ( although a significant minority use other terms). The suggestion has merit, but I don't think the case is strong enough. Icundell 00:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I vote to keep the article here. All towns are of course at some point "new", but many fewer are new recently, since most towns have now been around for a long while. The "New town movement" was a specific program, and all cities start as towns. It may be reasonable to have two articles at some point, but the terms are largely interchangeable in planning community. BTW, you could move the articles by hand (i.e. copying all the text from one to the other and then redirect New town to planned city). If you feel like fussing with it, it might be better to have specific articles on Planned communities in the United States, Planned communities in Poland, etc. dml 03:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the "new town" movement, but I think that the majority of the cities currently in the article are called "planned communities" or "planned cities" and not called "new towns". So if this page doesn't get moved, I guess someone will have to split the article up, but I think it makes more sense to keep it all together and just move it to planned city. ~leif ☺ _HELO 01:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Do not move the whole article by hand by cutting and pasting: that separates it from its edit history. Either use the "Move this page" link or (if that doesn't work) ask on Wikipedia:Requested moves. As far as I am aware, the new towns and the "new town movement" is pretty UK specific, but planned cities occur all over the place. There is an argument to have specific articles on each. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for educating more wikipedians about why not to do copy+paste moves! It is important that people are made aware that they shouldn't do that. ~leif

Thanks - it is also worth mentioning that the only way to split an article into two or more new article is cutting and pasting, but then it best practice is to record the fact in the edit summary so the previous edit history can be tracked back. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I se where you are coming from, I think that would be unwarranted fragmentation (at this stage, at least - maybe the time will come). Icundell 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So the latest concensus now is to diffrentiate between new towns and planned cities? I see that as an excellent move, coming from an geographic/urban planning background. In fact, the definition of a new town in this page is hardly complete or accurate. I plan to write a more complete definition, but shall I do this now, or until the page is split up?--Huaiwei 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dormitary"?

In the subsection on Ireland, it says The area is now mostly a dormitary town for Belfast. I was unable to find a definition for the word "dormitary" in any of my dictionaries and a Google search reveals many misspellings of "dormitory", which based on the context I don't think is the case here. Any ideas on what was intended? [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 09:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try searching under dormitory town. Loads of links (note the spelling). Icundell 09:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed the spelling in the article Icundell

Aha. I didn't know what a dormitory town was, or that there was such a thing. It seems to be a primarily British term which is probably why. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 10:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia also has articles for both dormitory town and bedroom community. ~leif

They are sometimes known as commuter towns. People live there, but don't work there. Icundell 10:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Planned settlement

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)

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)

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

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)

Request for Move discussion

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)
• Support. "New town" is quite ambiguous, whereas "planned city" refers quite clearly to what the article is about. I'm not sure I've ever heard "new town" used to refer to the idea of a planned city; a ridiculous number of settlements in the world are named something like "new town" or "new city" in some language, most of which are not planned cities. (Novgorod immediately springs to mind...) —Tkinias 22:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• To make it 'official', Oppose (object seems so confrontational), because I see no pressing need for it. 'New town' is in common usage, the redirects get the job done and a substantial majority of links into the page come via that term or very similar terms. Further, since the concept as it is used today came out of the New town movement, it more accurately reflects its theoretical roots. I would also strongly oppose breaking the article up, as suggested on its talk page. The time might come, but it's not here yet. Icundell 01:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. As per previous post, although I think probably a situation of having both a new town and planned city page would be best (they are different concepts really, though related. See motorway and freeway for example). zoney ♣ talk 03:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose too - I've said on the talk page that there could be two separate articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe "New Town" is used by some people, but here in Canada, I have never heard it used. Ever. SECProto 15:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Folks, I think what we have here is another US-UK thing, just with Canada coming down on the US side for a change ;). I just reread the article and realized that "New Town" is an official usage in the UK (New Towns Act). I still maintain that the term is ambiguous, but I think we need to recognize that the reason for the disagreement has a lot to do with differing trans-Atlantic usage. I like Icundell's proposal of Planned settlement as the best, most generic term. The first city cited is Washington, D.C., which (by U.S. standards *grin*) is not a particularly new town; it also mentions colonial-era American cities, which would be the oldest ones in the hemisphere. Therefore New town is a bit misleading. The article does not, BTW, currently have enough "meat" to warrant fragmentation IMO. —Tkinias 19:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term is used in the UK exclusively to refer to sub-city level towns run by a planning committee or (in the case of Cramlington and perhaps one or two others) a local borough council, developed after WWII to deal with population overspill from large cities. There is a lot of room for organic growth--the history of the New Towns in the UK at least is a very significant part of the urbanization of the English countryside. There is no need for a move. Keep the section of the article that applies to these developments in its present place and pop the other, conceptually different, material into Planned city instead of the current redirect to New town. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was born in a New Town and although some of the London overspill 'New Town's were planned, not all of them were (mostly it was a designation) and they certainly weren't 'cities'. The term also has legal sense in that there was a commission for the New Towns which chose where they should be, etc. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons said above. To reiterate, a new town is actually a reference to a planning concept which can be (and has been) applied to urban areas on either sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. It is not so much on whether the urban area is "new" or not, or whether the urban area is a "town" or a "city". This page might be of some use to those unfamiliar with the term "new town" as a concept: The Garden City and New Town Movements--Huaiwei 18:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Pro Move it! "new" is a useless adj in this case, as all towns were new at some point new, but only a select amount were planned. Or move it to Town (formation) or something. I'm just against New * it sounds stupid and never tells you anything. New as in current, New as in what happened at the beginning, New as in not old? This is not a new or interesting debate. EvanCarroll 05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support When I hear "new town" the thought of a planned city does not spring to mind, instead the idea of a small settlement, planned or not, does. Calling it "Planned City" explains exactly what the article is about.
• The Oxford reports both "planned city" and "new town". There should be only one article, with suitable links. At present, "Planned city" is strictly a subset of "New town", moreover, it completely misses America (!!). By the the way, listing some small (no upper) middle-class suburbia of Milan, built by Berlusconi, as examples of new towns, is grossly misleading: they were just real estate speculation, with no serious urbanistic planning behind them.Yougeeaw (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Car plant in East Kilbride?

Not sure what the reference here was meant to be - there has never (as far as I know) been a car manufacturer in East Kilbride. Is this confusion with another New Town (though I don't think any of the other Scottish New Towns have a car plant), or confusion about the Rolls Royce plant in East Kilbride (which is for aero engines)? Also implies East Kilbride is a second generation New Town rather than first generation (1947). Reference removed as inaccurate.

Brazil

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

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)

Also, Brasilia was very much itself a planned city. It should certainly be included in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.222.76 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New Towns (planned cities) in India

Sorry if this is not relevant to the wiki, just wanted to vent my frustration at the lack of planned cities in India. Its ironic that Indus valley civilization had planned cities, good sewage system etc. There is urgent need of planned cities in India, because existing cities suffer following problems

- Systematic planning and law enforcement (lack of)

Perhaps, many city municipalities never expected that so many people will own automobiles (because they are not invented in India). This is evident from lack of enough parking spaces in front of shops, restaurants, government offices, railway stations. People have NO choice but to park on the streets, adding to the road congestion. The market places are overcrowded due to narrow roads and insufficient space, with high risk of stampedes.

Why are small shops are allowed on two sides of roads, thats so stupid. Small shop owners cannot afford to have parking space for their customers, so they should come together in a mall with enought parking space.

- Environment

Rivers have becomes sewage channels, pollution levels are high due to congested traffic, lack of parks.

- Sewage system

Many roads do not have required share (inverted V), so water just accumulates

- Roads

No concern for pedestrians, and bicycle riders. Roads are too narrow.

I do NOT want to generalize, so above comments are only based on my experiences in following cities:

- Pune [See Swargate bus stand, Pune railway station, pune municipal corp office, river mula, muta]

- Kolkata [See sector 5, Salt lake, road are too narrow compared to number of buildings]

- Chennai [Tirumai Pillai road]

- Mumbai [See news reports about casualities last year due to heavy rain and lack of sophisticated sewage system ]

To be fair there are few planned cities, some of them are mentioned in the article. I would be glad to hear about new town (planned cities) projects in India. Ideas, suggestions are welcome.

Useless

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)

I also notice that this article focuses on past planned cities, and there is very little mention of future cities or new towns that are planned on being built or under construction 172.130.58.83 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further examples

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)

Cycling & UK new towns

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)

Soviet Union

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)

Alphabetical order

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)

Erm... they are, aren't they? Tafkam (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Canberra

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)

I don't see how it's discriminatory, but it is irrelevant anyway, because Canberra is not a New Town. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This appears to be treated under the heading of Ireland, and then again mentioned in the UK section. My personal view is that it ought to be listed under UK, since it is part of the UK, not part of the nation of Ireland. But is there a historical reason for this, before I go chopping and changing bits about?

File:Headline text

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

New town → Planned city — New Town is an odd read for many. These places are commonly called Planned cities and this term is commonly used in the article. As a part of this, it might be necessary to split off some of the UK stuff that clearly relates to a name used there for specific places. I'll add that new is a rather confusing term for places that have existed for hundreds of years. I'll add that the proposed name matches what is used on commons, Category:Planned cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to be a clear WP:ENGVAR case but I have to say that "planned city" is a bit clearer that "new town" to the uninitiated. "New town" could have the general meaning of "a (i.e., any) new town" to an American whereas "planned city" doesn't appear to have this problem. — AjaxSmack 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for making this proposal. As a US-English speaker, I also find the "new town" name to a bit odd. As AjaxSmack points out, it's easier to guess the meaning of "planned city" than it is to guess the meaning of "new town." However, instead of renaming the article, I wonder if it would be better to split in two: make Planned city and New town into two separate articles. I have a notion that this is not purely a matter of WP:ENGVAR, because the term "new town" has a more specific (narrower) meaning than "planned city." According to this notion of mine, "a new town" is separate and distinct from any existing towns, and all aspects of the community are thoroughly planned, whereas "planned city" might simply mean (for example) that the streets are laid out in a defined pattern and some land is set aside for certain public amenities. (I could easily be wrong about this notion of mine.) --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • However we do the split, it is going to be a mess to cleanup. My reasoning for moving first is that the bulk of the article and links is not for the UK new town, but rather for the planned settlement aspect. So the move would do the best job of preserving the edit history in the main article. If anyone wants to do the split before this closes, I'll withdraw the nomination. Links will need cleaning up. In fact, I'll probably start cleaning up the US ones to planned something so that a split at any time will have fewer remaining links that need to be cleaned up. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • In checking the links, it is clear that the UK usage is a significant percentage of the inbound links. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to Planned community, since these things need not be cities or towns. Further, IIRC, there are actual places called "New town" 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection to this name if that is where consensus lies. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with move to Planned community and suggest that some of the UK content be relocated to make a proper article of New towns in the United Kingdom. Tafkam (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Do New towns in Hong Kong, New towns in Ireland and New towns in Singapore also need to be created as articles? They have categories which is why I'm asking. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Wikipedia is not a US-centric website. Moving this would be a clear violation of WP:ENGVAR, New Town is no less common than planned city which already redirects here. For reference, there is another failed RM above. Jeni ^(talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I agree that there is a US-UK difference in terminology, what is clear from this whole article is that in most cases around the world 'New Town' is not an entirely appropriate label. Here in the UK New Town is generally the most appropriate term, but has a rather specific meaning, which requires a more specific article. I would support a new 'New Town' article which dealt specifically with the formal meaning of the term in the UK (and perhaps other places), with an opening statement along the lines of "New Towns are a form of Planning community..." Tafkam (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That article is already there as New towns in the United Kingdom. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per Jeni. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have just undone Vegaswikian's split of UK information from this article. The move was a jumping the gun a little bit, this discussion is still ongoing. Jeni ^(talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It is not only settlements with city status that were planned, so if the article were to be moved it would need to be to a broader title than "planned city". Something along the lines of planned settlement; although someone above has suggested planned community, this may refer to groups of people rather than settlements. The commons category needs changing too. Furthermore, the definition of this article's scope is "A new town, planned community, or planned city is a city, town, or community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed in a previously undeveloped area. This contrasts with settlements that evolve in a more ad hoc fashion. Land use conflicts are uncommon in new towns as new towns are planned carefully" (taken from the lead). What is being proposed is to give the article as predominantly US-slant. There are planned settlements all over the place, for example in medieval Europe. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, planned settlements do exist all over the place and during many periods of history. For me, that's a reason to change the title, not a reason to keep the existing title. It has seemed odd that the generic topical discussion of planned settlements has been shoehorned under the title "new town". --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My oppose relates to moving the article to planned city, which is the proposal. If the proposal was to change to move the article to planned settlement, I would support it for the reasons I've outlined above. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose original proposal as an unnecessary Americanisation, but would support "planned community" as it is all encompassing.--Simple Bob (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is very anglo-centric; the rest of the world does not have this 'city status' hangup. Wikipedia is international. As for historic planned cities/towns, it would be an easy MoS statement that it is reserved for cities (towns) founded after 1900. Otherwise we shall end up with a fork - New Town for UK and New City for everyone else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed we already have New towns in the United Kingdom which seems to solve the UK problem. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposed title is very US-centric, so how is it any better? Jeni ^(talk) 22:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'd be concerned over too much changing of the title with regards to 'new towns' in the United Kingdom. I refer you all to this - [[1]] which is rather self explanatory as to why we call them New Towns here, as that is the legal paperwork they are created under. Therefore, if anything is done, I suggest a whole new page that covers the specifics of the UK's New Town planning of the 1940s-70s. Also, new towns in the UK were designed and operated by New Town Development Corporations. The phrase is very specific to the UK so should have greater prominence in its own article. Bryn666 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Planned community, with split-off (and expansion) of one or more articles focused on "new towns". I discussed my reasoning earlier, and I definitely prefer "community" over "city" as more generic. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Community is ambiguous as it could refer to a group of people, what about planned settlement (which currently redirects here)? Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Planned settlement would work for me, too. Either "settlement" or "community" would avoid potential issues related to the standard nomenclature for municipal governments. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally unnecessary attempt to Americanise things. Lenzar (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose WP:ENGVAR. Towns are not cities. This is quite simple - the topic is notable. So is 'planned city'. If anyone wishes to develop the latter, go ahead. The historic origins, e.g. New Towns Act 1946, means that the term represents a specific type of development. There is nothing wrong with the status quo; the term is in common use, redirects are cheap. The previous contributors have donated their efforts to the development of an article about New Town, not about planned cities.  Chzz  ►  01:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An "odd read"? Sidewalk, freeway and apartment are odd reads to me, but I love it. Vive le différence.  Chzz  ►  01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Perhaps some previous contributors were focused on writing about "new towns", but back in 2002 someone created Planned city as a redirect to New town. Since then, contributors who wanted to write about the topic of "planned city" have been diligently adding content to this article, and other contributors (like me) who have contributed articles about planned cities have linked those articles to this one, because this is where those other terms pointed. Over the years, although a few related topics got their own articles (e.g., New Urbanism), additional redirects to this article were created for terms that relate more to "plannedness" than to "new-town-ness", including planned settlement, planned community, planned village, planned town, model city, master planned community, master-planned subdivisions, and variations on these names. Comments here confirm my impression that "new town" and "planned city" (or "planned settlement" or "planned community") are not just different names for the same concept, but are conceptually distinct. This suggests that the article needs to be split into at least two pieces. I say "at least two pieces" because I think that master-planned subdivisions and master-planned mixed-use developments like Tellico Village, Tennessee, Greenway Plaza, Houston, Southern Trails, and Sun City Summerlin, Nevada are distant cousins (at most) to topics like Garden city movement or planned/new towns/cities/settlements/communities such as Canberra, Norris, Tennessee, or Milton Keynes, and should not be lumped together with them. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're suggesting moving this article to a new title and to keep it as broad as possible, but to create new articles for regional variations, which would presumably still be linked or summarised in the main article? Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Although my copy of the Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography (first published 1987) says that the term 'new town' is primarily associated with post-1945 developments in Britain, it is clearly also used elsewhere in Europe. e.g. here and here. Interestingly the dictionary includes an entry for 'planned village' but nothing on 'planned cities' or 'planned communities'.--Pondle (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Planned city is too specific to certain territories, and certain periods of time. Planned settlement has far too strong Israel/Palestine connotations, and although it sounds an inclusive term, I don't see it in the literature. Planned community, is a term that appears in both the US and UK planning literature. Crucially, it accurately describes the planners' notion that lay behind these developments, the idea that you could, through the physical form, plan a community of people. So in summary, oppose as nominated, recommend move to planned community. MRSC (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a change to something more neutral. The suggestions to use either Planned community (first choice) or Planned settlement strike me as very practical, here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: "planned community" would be the best alternative title of the ones given. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Planned community

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, it is definitely a POV fork. Jeni ^(talk) 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No progress since March 2010. If no one objects, I'm going to merge. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

United Kingdom

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion to merge or differentiate

See Talk:Planned community. Contribute there please. --Jayron32 04:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

United States

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)

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)