Talk:New towns of Singapore

Controversy

This article makes the Singapore New Towns sound like everyone loves them. However, from my experience in Singapore, this is not the case. Apparently a lot of people don't like the kind of communities that New Towns provide, specifically the older generations as they may have grown up in a traditional Malay village known as a Kampung. I believe I read about that at a museum in Singapore. Maybe someone should add something about that? I'll look into it when I have more time. Cdmckay (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Why are there so many pages for the same place, like,

Ang Mo Kio Ang Mo Kio New Town Ang Mo Kio Estate Ang Mo Kio Planning Area

What's the difference and what belongs on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronDierkes (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

@Lemongirl942: If you are wondering why I moved the page to its current title, here are my sources: [1] [2][3] [4] [5] -- MageLam (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I'm contesting this move as the original article was about the "New towns of Singapore", as you can see from the history and the introduction. From a historical perspective, HDB used the term "New Town" almost exclusively for referring to all towns in its annual report at least till the late 90s [6]. It is only since the 2000s that the HDB has been also referring to them as "HDB towns" in its annual report. Despite this, the HDB still continues to use the term "New Town". (I'm only listing New Town when used as a descriptor and not when it is part of a name)

• [7] "was the seventh New Town to be built in Singapore"
• [8] "Major development of Bukit Batok into a satellite HDB town started in 1970. It has since developed into a self-contained new town"
• [9] "Bukit Panjang has been transformed into a self-contained new town"
• [10] "Hougang is the largest HDB new town based on land area."
• [11] "It was the first satellite new town to have its major..."

I checked out other sources, at CLC and

• this book uses New Town multiple times [12], [13]
• This report mentions about 23 news towns [14], [15]

News reports use both terms, and the term new town is still in use now

• "...and the latest new town of Punggol." [16]
• "Singapore's first new town fully planned and built by HDB" [17]
• "the first Housing Board new town" [18]

If you look at the references in newspapers (1960-present), "new town" has been used far more times than "HDB town". Considering the historical importance of the term, its continued prevalence and the original intent/subject of the article, I think the initial article name was fine and renaming is not appropriate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Before the very first time I edited this article, it was more or less a list of HDB towns in Singapore and not a full on article discussing about the topic (a role which is taken by Public housing in Singapore). [19] Anyways, I believe that the modern appellation "HDB town" is more prevalently used, although I won't deny the historical context of the term "new town". These days however, the term is preferably used to describe the way a HDB town is planned rather than as a descriptor. -- MageLam (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: In the newspaper archives, "New Town" has a lot more references (by a factor of 10) than "HDB town". Even now, "New town" continues to be used. Article names need to change when substantial sources switch over (keeping in mind, the historical perspective), which is not what is happening at present. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To add to it, article names are not immediately changed. The term "New Town" has been in use from sometime in 1960. Considering that HDB switched to using only "town" in its annual report from early 2000, it has not been that long enough for a change. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar article for Hong Kong New towns of Hong Kong. I believe the original intent of this page was to talk about New Towns in Singapore (and only new towns, not estates). Looks like drive-by editing added estates to the article and it has since become just a page for statistics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Regardless, I still believe it's important to include "estates" in the title. The HDB still maintain three areas under "estate" status and I believe its important to discuss this as well. -- MageLam (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, the "Public housing in Singapore" article largely discusses about the topic of HDB towns and estates in general. This article is more than a mere statistical list of towns and estates in the country. -- MageLam (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: The HDB mentions them as "others" in the list. The list of "other estates" has not been stable throughout the years. "Lim Chu Kang" used to be in this others list, but now it is no longer there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Although the new towns are significant, estates should also be mentioned as well. Since this is a list article, it would be appropriate to have "and estates" or "and other estates" in the title, as the HDB includes these three estates in their statistical reports. -- MageLam (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: If you look at the original article created when Wikiproject Singapore was more active, you will see that it only had the towns. The estates were added much later [20] at a time when the project didn't have a lot of collaboration and editing was mostly drive-by edits instead of collaborative edits. The subject of any article should be well defined. In this case, it was specifically the towns and not the estates.

Another problem with including estates in the title is that the term "estate" is not well defined. Yes, HDB included 3 areas under "other estates". But "Central Area" is not a housing estate - it consists of many other estates (York Hill, Jalan Kukoh, Pinnacle@Duxton etc). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: So where should these estates be discussed then? I mean, they are after all closely related to the new towns as well, all but in name. -- MageLam (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Yes, that's a good question. But before that, try thinking about this. If you talk about estates, is "Central Area" an estate? Or is it a collection of estates? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: True, very true. It is indeed a collection of several estates that are administratively consolidated after all. But what about the others? -- MageLam (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: Marine parade is surely an estate. Bukit Timah is basically the Toh Yi drive estate (or Toh Yi estate). HDB also used to have an estate in Lim Chu Kang which is no longer mentioned. There is also Changi Village but I guess it doesn't mention it in the annual population report because the blocks are no longer used for residents. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: But still, I believe estates should also be discussed in this article as they are still closely tied and associated with new towns. There's no denying that. -- MageLam (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: I don't mind keeping a small amount of content about the estates (as part of the population data table). But I am not convinced that the article title should contains estates, nor should it discuss estates in detail. Here's why. If a new town is destroyed (and no longer exists), it will still merit a stay on this page as a former "new town" of Singapore. Can the same be said about the estates? Should former estates be mentioned on this page? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I don't really see how that makes a difference. If an estate is abolished by the HDB it is almost the same when you say that for a new town likewise. Should such a thing ever occur, a former estate or town could be mentioned in a section. Both new towns and estates are still HDB entities and possessions by right. In other words, I rather have the title of this article use the initial title before I changed it, "New towns and estates of Singapore". -- MageLam (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@MageLam: The current page title "New towns of Singapore" is actually the original title before you moved it see [21]. The problem with the term "former estates" is that it is not well defined. We know what a new town it. But the word "estate" has been used to refer to multiple entities, even by HDB. Think of this - if former estates are included, which ones would you include. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New towns of Singapore. 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/20041228085457/http://www.bshf.org/en/to.php/about/whawards/projects.php?pID=00039 to http://www.bshf.org/en/to.php/about/whawards/projects.php?pID=00039
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304145846/http://www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/ar2015/html5/index.html?opf=tablet%2FKey%20Statistics.xml to http://www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/ar2015/html5/index.html?opf=tablet%2FKey%20Statistics.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)