Talk:Theories of urban planning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infrastructure planning[edit]

Should this redirect here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No infrastructure planning should be considered a sub-discipline. Technical urban planners work in infrastructure planning. They develop systemwide plans, create political consensus, arrange funding sources and write the scope of large complex projects (an example would be a development plan for a light rail line). They also analyze entire systems of public infrastructure and determine systemwide needs and maintenance. Civil engineers and electrical systems engineers play a very pivotal role in infrastructure planning as well and are traditionally considered the other major players in infrastructure planning as they pull projects into the other stages of program delivery. Infrastructure planning is also related to urban design and architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.181.239 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, urban and regional planning deal with larger projects...Data and Lore (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data and Lore, your discussion is confusing and unclear. The distinction being made here is that infrastructure planning is a sub-discipline of urban planning in the same way that transportation planning is also a sub-discipline. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global urban planning[edit]

Currently, there is no world map made for urban planning on a global level. Urban planning on a global level (across countries) would be advisable as that would allow to inform states on how to best move people (out of less developed zones with lush rainforests, biodiversity hotspots to regions that are allready developed and have little biodiversity anymore). It would also be advisable to do so in the interest of improving transport, supply of food, production of food (the people "solve" this by cutting down trees and converting the forest into cleared land), energy, ...

The map can be made by cross comparing following maps: http://www.earthenginepartners.appspot.com/‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_with_key.png http://www.populationlabs.com/maps/World_Population_Map.png http://go.grolier.com/atlas?id=mtlr084&tn=/atlas/printerfriendly.html

For example, it would be best to move the people to grasslands/steppes, savannas, ... which have a far lower biodiversity, and also have richer soil, meaning less fertilisation is required.

In some instances, it may be even better to move people to other countries (with a different vegetation), rather than simply move them to more populated zones within the country. This, as they could then also continue their profession (ie farming). Countries to where the people would immigrate could

  • drop their minimum wages (optional, useful as it can increase

revenue for country of destination)

  • drop all restrictions for immigrants (ie permits to stay)
  • pay the expenses to move the people into their country from a

different country (possible as the person, over his lifetime, would generate a lot more revenue than the expense of the transport). For the people themselves, it is also attractive as:

  • they may attain a far higher wage for the same job
  • there may be a better system of social security in their new country

Obviously, the people that would be moved would be people in forest land with high biodiversity, in specific targeting areas where population densities are still relatively low yet are beginning to rise, and where the infrastructure/urbanization is still relatively unadvanced. Some examples: if you cross compare the maps in annex, you'll see that for example in borneo, as well as in thailand, Brazil, Myanmar, ... there are areas that are beginning to have population in relatively low-populated zones; these people could be moved to more populated zones within the country, ...

80.200.225.169 (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an architect and instructor of Urban Planning I'm dismayed by the failure to take into account Climate change. Take as one example of climate change rising sea levels on the East Coat of the United States. More than 100 cities with populations greater than 100,000 can't be saved with sea walls and or levees from the consequences of the IPCC's Report V. Although much is made of the fact that cities presently have crumbling [[infrastructure] such as tunnels, roads and bridges, that have been in need of repair in some cases for seventy five years, they shouldn't be rebuilt in place but rather relocated to new ground more than 60 meters above present day sea levels. No urban planning which I am aware of that is dealing with this on an interstate regional basis for urban clusters such as the Bos-Wash corridor let alone on an international global level. We haven't even begun to seriously address climate change let alone the urban planning for it.
Cities such as Boston,New York, Washington DC., Norfolk, VA, Miami and New Orleans will be experiencing 2 feet of sea level rise by 2050 and another 2-3 feet of sea level rise by 2100. Urban planners might try climate change mediation, designing green buildings, using alternative energy and ceasing to design any carbon burning infrastructure, but projections are that despite this what we have already done will lock us into a rise of temperature to 2 degrees C by 2050 and go off the charts at 8-21 degrees C by 2150. Three earth atmospheres of methane hydrates, 25 times as serious a greenhouse gas as CO2, will be released as temperatures pass 2 degrees C. The result will be that the polar ice caps will melt not in millenia as we have been previously told but in centuries. Populations are projected to rise to 8 Billion by 2050 and crash to millions by 2150.
Away from the coasts populations will experience drought, flood, 100 year storms every decade and then every year, there will be plague, pestilence, crop failures, resource wars over drinking water, failures of distribution networks designed to bring power, communications, and water to infrastructure and to remove sewage, exhaust gases, and trash.
On large projects such as Boston's Big Dig, transportation projects linking shipyards, airports, commuter and freight railroads, subway projects and bus lines with underground utilities, temporary tunnels and bridges while keeping neighborhoods and commercial districts, manufacturing, schools, hospitals, police and fire functioning, urban planning can take 25 years. Within that time frame the US East Coast needs to move half a state of more inland Data and Lore (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I think there was a mistake done and part of the comments are now the "Urban planning" paragraph, which is obviously not following the Neutral point of view we should have by writing Wikipedia articles. (see: "No urban planning I am aware of is dealing" etc.) I suggest we delete it for the time being (as it's not academic) and the best would be to have someone writing one explaining to the point the pro's and con's of the Global Urban Planning concept. Weissespumpernickel (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, see the discussions related to the topic. Thanks for your insights on it. Weissespumpernickel (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, after some discussions, it has been decided to remove this paragraph as this is not academic. To include any paragraph about Global Urban Planning, please write a sourced and neutral article based on WP:Reliable sources, per the WP:Verifiability policy. Happy to provide my ideas on the topic. Weissespumpernickel (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank Weissespumpernickel as this sub-section was written from an individuals point-of-view and was not encyclopedic. Just as point of contention this subject is not widely accepted within the field and there is some debate amongst the academic field.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Process Planning and aspect[edit]

Aspect: An aspect was considered for deal with regulation of admission into any room! of more or less sunshine. Aspect 1s meant for arrangement of doors and windows 1n the external walls of the bui1idingwh1ch allows the natural gifts of sun shine and air, scenery ect. Kitchen: Eastern aspect, so that the morning sun would refresh and purify the air and the kitchen would 

              remain cool during latter part of the day.

Living Room: Southern or South-East aspect ,The sun 1s towards the south during coo1er days and the living rooms with south aspect will be benefited by the sun when it is winter and in summer as the sun would be on north side. Bed Room: West or South-west aspects the breeze required partlcular1y in summer, would prevail from that side. There will be no sun from the south side most of the year, the laundries and store rooms may be provided on that side. Light from North -evenly Distributed the Studios, reading rooms and class rooms are laid out with north aspect. 

writer -waghmare vishal¡  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.47.98 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epic of Gilgamesh as the first recorded instance of Urban Planning occurring with the city of Uruk[edit]

The first recorded description of urban planning is described in the Epic of Gilgamesh for the city of Uruk.

"Go up on to the wall of Uruk and walk around ! Inspect the foundation platform and scrutinize the brickwork ! Testify that its bricks are baked bricks, And that the Seven Counsellors must have laid its foundations ! One square mile is city, one square mile is orchards, one square mile is claypits, as well as the open ground of Ishtar's temple. Three square miles and the open ground comprise Uruk. Look for the copper tablet-box, Undo its bronze lock, Open the door to its secret, Lift out the lapis lazuli tablet and read it"

The question arises what does this plan look like. Some imagine a central square of open ground surrounded by a circle of a square mile which is the city, and a second narrow circle of a square mile which is orchards and a third narrower still which is clay pits. archaeology provides a map about 2500 meters in diameter with a square of about 100 meters to a side between the buildings of the zigurat complex of which the temple of Ianna (Ishtar) is a part.Data and Lore (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reference note 69 missing URL[edit]

I tried to fix this but couldn't and reverted my effortData and Lore (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of organic urban planning[edit]

Organic urban design uses natural features and like nature abhors a straight line. Vitruvius addresses it as shaped by wind and water, In early and medieval cities and towns it exhibits natural closure where transit follows a course through residential neighborhoods of craftsmen and guilds, to market squares with glimpses of public works exposing attractive features that draw you farther in. Most organic urban design began in cave complexes around river mouths and deltas occurring where the waterways which were the first highways met some natural change of state; the ocean, rapids or a waterfall, steep cliffs that hemmed a river in making it go faster, an oasis along a coast or an island in a river. Almost all settlements originated either as trading posts, forts, ports, caravan watering holes, sources of natural resources such as clay, stone, bitumen, timber, spices, perfumes, a good place to hunt or fish, or a place to forage where natural grains or fruits grew wild. In most such places whoever controlled the water controlled the land and so organizing the digging of irrigation ditches or changing the course of streams became some of the first urban planning projects. Nomads whose hunting and gathering led them to such places tended to expand settlements with a seasonal meetup to trade, or exploit the growing cycles of flora and fauna. When the fish were running everybody would come to the falls and if they wanted to catch a lot of fish buy a basket or a net, trade furs for a boat or trade shaped obsidian for a throwing stick or trident.

Moving forward into a period when there began to be a division between land folk and seapeople there is a sharp division between the style of settlements. Sea people tend to choose a small island close to shore at or near an oasis with a fresh water source to which they may build a causeway creating a harbor. Land folk tend to build a [[walled enclosure to if nothing else protect them and their crops and herds against the attacks of predators. Both sea people and land folk tended to make some places sacred as burial grounds or the home of elemental powers or beauty. Almost all of the coastal settlements mentioned in The Periplus of the Erythrian Sea are designed by sea peoples to have groves of tall timbers suitable for masts. Almost all of them have inland satellite villages occupied by land folk. Almost all land folk settlements are near a natural resource which they can trade.Data and Lore (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Urban Land Use Model into this article[edit]

  • Support. The above-referenced article hardly stands on its own. It makes more sense to merge it into this article & redirect. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article split[edit]

@Hendrick 99: split apart the sections History of urban planning and Aspects of urban planning, which IMHO is a good idea, as the article had become unmanageable. It's however always necessary to leave in or merge back a few introductory paragraphs. The same holds for the theories section which could be split apart as well, but needs a few introductory paragraphs to remain here. --PanchoS (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has now created two almost-identical articles - Aspects of urban planning and Technical Aspects of Urban Planning. Randomeditor1000 - are you intending on deleting the former article? Rund717 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of urban planning was redirected to Technical Aspects of urban planning by Invalidibot on April 25th the same day I moved it, the duplication was an accident. I added the adjective Technical to the title because all of the entries that were left in that article were about technical practices around specific elements of urban planning. (For example, transportation, water resources etc.)Randomeditor1000 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Urban Planning[edit]

Because of @Hendrick 99:'s split of the main urban planning article, there is no one single article that explains what it is. Article editors should be looking at the Civil Engineering article to fix this complete mess. Individual pages for theories, practices, practitioners need to be integrated into this new page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a mess. There needs to once again be an article simply titled "urban planning". Citobun (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Citobun, I created a new simple article at urban planning, separated out each of the various sub-topics that had been previously created. These are:

Since these were the longest existing sub-topics within the mega-sized original urban planning article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some recent edits that I wanted to discuss why I reverted:
First, I introduced a commonly accepted definition for the introduction lead by the American Planning Association and the McGill University School of Urban Planning. While there are many definitions out there, I suggest it is the most concise and easy for the average reader to understand. Urban Planning does not necessarily include the licensed (and historically separate) field of architecture. Urban Design can be described as a sub-field that was born of Urban Planning. Additionally, there are many subfields of urban planning including transportation planning, environmental planning, community development, infrastructure planning, natural resources planning etc etc etc. There are many subfields as listed in the Template:Urban Planning.
The last cluster-f#@$ of an massive article resulted from a lot of competing perspectives of urban planning that led to it being 1. Too long 2. Unreferenced or original research content 3. POV 4. Weasel words 5. Some sections read like a personal essay. So for these reasons I have reverted the changes to the most recent stable version. Lets try to make this more concise and not turn into a crap article again.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Randomeditor1000 I see my well-intentioned edits have been caught up in a this thread. While I agree with your intent to create a short article linking to more detailed pages, almost all of my edits have been reversed. This includes:
  • references to urban planning relating to cities only. It applies to all development, including development in rural areas.
  • The APA / McGill definition, IMO, is not broad enough to concisely describe planning, and may not make sense to non-planners stumbling across this page - I had modified it to refer to the macro and micro scale of planning commonly practiced in urban and rural regions, districts and towns worldwide.
  • Removing an inference to urban planning having developed Hong Kong. Hong Kong (like most places) is the by-product of multitudes of actions by individual land owners and government over hundreds of years, and at best its development was influenced by urban planning.
  • Separating urban planners from urban planning. See for example architecture and architects.
  • I am not aware of any rule which requires sections to be limited to a single, concise paragraph only. The section on Urban_planning#History_of_Urban_Planning, while nice and concise, gave next to no impression of the history of urban planning.
I have no intention of turning this page into waffle, and in fact would like to merge several similar pages on the same topic. I see from your history you have the same idea. Can we get some agreement on direction for the urban planning pages, so we are not working cross-purpose. Rund717 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that there are other users interested in Urban Planning.
  • I understand your POV is that the definition of urban planning is not "broad enough". I disagree, as your interpretation is that the Canadian english meaning is not "broad enough". The whole point of the McGill University definition is that urban planning means exactly that. I don't disagree the scales at which urban planning is performed. I disagree that scale is even relevant on it's face. Because by definition all urbanized places are within the scope of practice. But more to the point the average reader has no understanding what of the meaning of "macro-scale planning" or "micro-scale planning" evens means. That implies rather broad connotations to economics, social planning and socio-political paradigms rather the common practices of the urban planner (or urbanist if must call us that).
  • Your next point is about Hong Kong. While urban planning exists in Hong Kong it gains no more importance or weight than any other city or locale per WP:UNDUE. I am not the referee of who gets to claim the 'first urban planners' or first planned city or best this or that. That isn't one of principles of wikipedia. For that reason I don't see why Urban planning in Hong Kong shouldn't be a separate article. The picture is a nice demonstration, but it is my contention that the picture's description explains it sufficiently.
  • The next point you have is about the articles: urban planner versus urban planning. I created a subheading that refers readers to the seperate profession (urban planning) versus the professional (urban planner). Numerous other professions like Nursing,Medicine,Civil Engineering etc have articles for both the professional and the profession. So, I'm not sure what your point is. I tried to clarify this distinction for readers.
  • In basis the profession of urban planning is relatively young as a separate and distinct practice. The quote from the history section was taken from the original history section in the massive urban planning article because it represented a point in time in which urban planners became a separate, distinct profession. For which urban planning became important to many countries including the UK, the US, Canada, Mexico, Europe etc, that had formalized the process as distinct from Architecture, Civil Engineering or other fields that were the primary actors in the years prior. I did not want to start off by making the inaccurate claim that currently exists as the lead in the History of Urban Planning article (ie urban planning's origins is based off some ancient practice in history).
  • To your point about rules. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. It has core principles that serve to help wikipedia function. And it also has consensus. The problem that we all had with the previous article was that it was massive and numerous problems that led to it's collapse. It was confusing to the average reader. In fact, when user:Hendrick 99 split the sub-headings were hard to follow. The current Theories of Urban Planning page still has all of the problem tags on it. This is because there were a lot of POV being added without real sources. There was also WP:Original Research. I mean come on we had users adding 'a criticism of the narrow focus of New Urbanism in there. That's not factual, that's opinion. So, in an attempt to try to communicate the basic concepts I created a new Urban Planning short page. I linked to each of the other major topics because IF anyone was actually interested they could get a short summary of the other areas and then go read more in that separate article.
  • It is my position that the other topic pages can be expanded to whatever length users propose is notable. So, for all intensive purposes the Theories of Urban Planning, History of urban planning, Technical Aspects of Urban Planning, and Urban Planner pages could be very long and in depth if wikipedians warrant it. It's my position also that the urban planning article should link to each of these and should have a summary but not the entire text of each.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

The introduction section is plagiarised from the source referenced 85.24.173.161 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS[edit]

I get it. It's a credentialed field and articles like this will generally be written in the style of a term paper using the things the profs bother to talk about. Even so, Wikipedia's article on "Theories of urban planning" should not be solely focused on the lesson plans of North American and British seminars principally dealing with 19th-century movements and current fads. It should include (at minimum)

  • Some further historical depth in the West, including Hippodamus and Plato's focus on rationalized and limited settlement with a focus on establishing idea city-states and Roman colonia, with their hard-minded focus on regional subjugation but obsessive focus on religious rituals to harmonize the space with the gods and establish an interior order sharply distinguished from the chaos of the natural world without
  • Traditional Chinese urban planning, with its theoretical geomantic components alongside sharp compartmentalization serving for crime, riot, epidemic, and crowd control

and anything concrete that's been used in Mesoamerica or India apart from the Mohenjo-daro deal.  — LlywelynII 16:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theories_of_urban_planning&oldid=1204864116"