Talk:Manhattanization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Does this really deserve an article

The actual apparently definition we have on there now is:

"Manhattanization was a pejorative word used by critics of the highrise buildings going up in San Francisco, California during the 1960s and 1970s, who were concerned the skyscrapers would block views of the surrounding hills. The term "Manhattanization" has been applied to Miami, Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada recently, in an economic light."

The rest of the article seems to suggest that the term means any sort of urban development with high rises does this really need its own entry?--Loodog 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a neologism to me. Put it up for AfD if you feel it's unencyclopedic. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I said AfD, not speedy :p I think it could have merit, I'm just not sure how much. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My fault. Fixed now.--Loodog 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea to have this article. I'd like to see evidence of it being used esp. articles from the 60s ad 70s from SF. But...we can't just assume that because skyscrapers are being put up that it's Manhattanization. Manhattanization is changing the characteristic cityscape of a city through building tall buildings. If they already exist than it's not Manhattanization. Manhattanization isn't simply a building boom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
True. Manhattanization is an special kind of building boom. And there are sources cited Miami's Manhattanization - Marc Averette 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your nomination was incomplete, so I fixed it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definition

The word isn't even defined in this article:

"Manhattanization was a pejorative word used by critics of the highrise buildings going up in San Francisco, California during the 1960s and 1970s, who were concerned the skyscrapers would block views of the surrounding hills. The term "Manhattanization" has been applied to Miami, Florida recently, in an economic light."

All that I've learned is: manhattanization is a word. This is like if I were to say "existentialism is a word used by 19th-century philosophers." Not exactly useful. Could we get a DEFINITION, here?--Loodog 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Man·hat·tan·ize (mān-hāt'n-īz', mən-) Pronunciation Key

tr.v. Man·hat·tan·ized, Man·hat·tan·iz·ing, Man·hat·tan·iz·es To transform the appearance and character of (a city) by constructing tall and densely situated buildings.

Man·hat'tan·i·za'tion (-ĭ-zā'shən) n. - Marc Averette 13:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A source on this please?--Loodog 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Nm. Found one.--Loodog 05:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor definition. The word is often applied where the buildings are not dense, or to density without super-tall buildings. And it is not clearly a legitimate concept to describe a real transformation. The usage is generally by people with an agenda to oppose new construction; to report the definition they coin as describing a real phenomenon ends up creating POV problems. I'm going with a broader definition. Wikidemo 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photos

The photo of "Biscayne" doesn't make it clear where it is. There is no link. To a non-american Biscayne is not an internationaly known name, where is it? --Brideshead 09:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need 3 Miami pics?

This article is supposed to be about the international phenomenon of Manhattanization. Do we need three Miami pictures to demonstrate this? We don't think Dubai needs at least one pic when Miami has three.--Loodog 00:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus needs to change

I have already edited the article to describe Manhattanization as a term used used by people opposed to booms in construction of high-rise buildings to describe what they perceive as an undesirable tranformation in a city, as opposed to a specific, universally recognized phenomenon. It is clearly not. Calling a construction boom a "Manhattanization" is American-centric, it implies that there is something going on other than a construction boom (if not, why coin a new neologism for something we already have a term for?), and it is controversial.

Cities the world over are undergoing construction booms, and have done so from time to time. Wikipedia is not about creating lists of cities or presenting summaries of statistics from other sites. Much of this article is simply a regurgitation of facts from emporis.com about random cities, without any attempt to explain why those cities matter to the concept of Manhattanization. I seriously doubt residents of Hong Kong, Tokyo, or Dubai oppose, or even conceive of, their current building booms as "Manhattanization." Even within the United States, there is inevitable opposition to change, and nearly every construction project is opposed by at least somebody who calls it a sign of Manhattanization. A partizan characterization of a thing does not deserve a wikipedia article, although if notable, the partizanship itself may merit an article (such as an article on anti-growth movements).

I therefore propose that unless someone comes up with verifiable, substantial references to a "Manhattanization" process going on in Dubai, Tokyo, Panama City, etc., we delete these cities from the list. The information is more appropriately put (and probably is already) in the individual articles for these cities. Wikidemo 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change the sourced definition? Manhattanization is the change in the appearance of a city by constructing tall and densely situated buildings (where there were none or few before). This is not the same as a construction boom where tall buildings are already present. Now the source is invalid, as it doesn't say the same as what the article states. - Marc Averette 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The "transformation of the appearance and character of a city" is clearly not what 'Manhattanization' means. A dictionary is the lowest class of source; the term is a neologism invented by anti-growth people to describe what they see as the process of a city turning into something they liken to Manhattan, which they oppose. In the face of a century or more of architecture, urban planning, sociology, etc., to take a glib phrase like this and take it for reality is a mistake and not befitting of an encyclopedia. I can source plenty of references that point this out but on the face of it the term is biased. Wikipedia is about things, not words. There is nothing inherently Manhattan-like about density, skyscrapers, or growth. This is a process happening all over the world without reference to Manhattan. You did not merely add to the article to improve it. You reverted the entirely of the constructive edits I made to get this article towards neutrality, the second time someone has done this in the last 24 hours or so. I'm changing it back until someone can come up with a good. Do it again and you're breaking the 3R rule. Wikidemo 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I take this back in part. You (user:avarette) did not simply revert; you cut out some cities and changed some things back and took out San Francisco entirely (where the term was arguably invented by anti-growth people, but to your credit did preserve some of my clean-ups of the text itself. There are some real problems. What about Dubai, Panama Cigty, and Las Vegas is Manhattan-like? There is no reasonable neutral source to say that, although if you look hard enough you can probably find someone who compares Lubbock, Texas to Manhattan. The thing I object to, primarily, is enshrining "Manhattanization" in Wikipedia as some kind of accepted term or process. As far as I know there is no consensus among people who care about urban growth that this is a unique, singular thing that relates specifically to Manhattan. The term is entirely a pejorative term used by people who for one reason or another oppose a particular project or development in general, and as an invective they compare it to Manhattan to capitalize on regional chauvinism. If people from your town, Miami, embrace Manhattan, good for them. But regional rivalries and opposition to growth, though notable subjects in themselves, have no place coloring what is supposed to be an objective article about cities.

[edit] We invented a word

google search Miami Manhattanization.

I can find only the unscholarly usemenow.com posting that is cited here, oodles of references to the article Wikipedia put up, and answers.com (but wait! they get their articles from us (WP)), but I'll be damned if I can find one reliable source that calls Miami's development Manhattanization.

What we're doing right now is writing an article about what we think a term that doesn't exist (until we invented it) means. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I really want to try to get this thing deleted again since it's somebody's op-ed piece. The sources this article stands on are tenuous at best.--Loodog 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal re. edit wars

First, to whomever keeps reverting the article back to its old state where it mentions Dubai, Las Vegas, and Panama City, please do not engage in a Wikipedia:Edit war. We are getting contentious reverts from anonymous users who are apparently skyscraper lovers who want to talk about Miami. They make no justification other than an unsubstantiated claim that they are reverting vandalism, which is clearly not the case. I and other established Wikipedians who have changed the article have stated and backed up valid reasons for making the changes. However much you may disagree with the outcome, reasoned edits are not vandalism.

To summarize some of the reasons:

 1. Manhattanization is an American-centric term, used almost exclusively for political purposes by opponents of development, that is inappropriate to apply to non-American cities that have their own reasons, history, and politics surrounding growth.
 2. Even where used approvingly (if ever), it is a neologism of no analytic validity.  There is no argument that using this loaded term adds anything to the statement that a city is undergrowing rapid growth.  There is no connection to Manhattan or its unique history that would differentiate one city's growth as being more Manhattan-like than another, only a reference to growth. There is no source to suggest that serious academic, scholarly, or journalistic accounts use the language.  It is not used within the field of knowledge.  At best it is used politically, informally, and in fluff pieces.  Hence it is unencyclopedic.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of neologisms.
 3. There are no sources at all for Panama City, Dubai, or Las Vegas, and hence I have removed them outright.
 4. Informal opinion language such as Miami being a "prime example of Manhattanization" assumes an acceptance of something without sourcing it.
 5. The "Biscayne Wall" is more of a neologism than Manhattanization, existing mainly in Wikipedia and a few blogs.  I've removed the reference.

[edit] Proposal and request for consensus

I think we should provisionally keep the article, because Neologisms in widespread use may be valid subjects for Wikipedia. However, the notability of the term is not that cities grow -- there are articles on that. It is that "Manhattanization" is, like gentrification, a political term. Explaining the origin and usage of the term helps explain the anti-growth movement. A lay reader who encounters the word and looks it up on Wikipedia will by learning a little more about the politics behind development reach a better understanding of the whole issue of urban planning. However, we should: (1) Keep out references to any city unless there are reliable sources that the term is regularly applied to that city; (2) Avoid coverage that there is an actual phenomenon of Manhattanization and that it is or is not occurring in any given place, only that it has become an issue in a particular city; (3) Avoid using this article as a mere catalog of which cities are growing and where skyscrapers are being built; (4) Not talk about Manhattan being Manhattanized; that's silly, and there are plenty of other places on Wikipedia where Manhattan's growth is discussed; and (5) Remove mention of Miami shortly unless someone finds a reliable source that the term is seriously applied to Miami -- the present citation has no more than the word Manhattanization in the headline without any discussion of the term. Under the guideline on neologisms that is clearly not a reliable source. Blogs, editorials, and chatty newspaper articles that cover growth (as opposed to covering the term) don't count either.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the proposals and why, or make your own proposal, so we can reach a consensus on what to do about this article. Meanwhile, do not undo the edits just because you disagree with them. Wikipedia is about consensus. If we can't agree we'll ask for moderation or arbitration -- if we can't create a clean useful article here I'll ask that it be deleted entirely. Wikidemo 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is this article has no real sources except the original 1969 Washington Post article. Usemenow.com is a blog site. Bobmiami looks like someone's personal website. If you run a google search on "manhattanization", the only results you find are references to this very article we wrote. I tried to get it deleted, but was overruled by people who, according to the edit counter, haven't even edited this page and assumed real sources would come along. All that's happened in the meantime is more original research has been vomited onto the page.--Loodog 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented most of the proposal and nobody objected or reverted it. So we can count it as having consensus. I think it's fair to remove Miami now. No good references.
Source or not, I remember living in various cities where the anti-development people would use the word. There was a movement in one, I forget which city, called "stop manhattanization now." It's unlikely we'll find good sources. This was before the Web, and paper sources for old grassroots political movements don't get uploaded to the web very often. You'd have to comb local newspapers, meeting agendas, free weekly newspaper archives... So it's marginally notable as a word used by anti-development people, that's as far as I could go. I'm neutral as to whether we should delete the article, but feel strongly that we shouldn't dignify the term with having a real or accepted significance as far as describing an actual process in urban growth. Perhaps we could merge this into a section in an article about NIMBYism or anti-development movements. Wikidemo 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As per this discussion I am shortening the Miami section to a simple mention that people have used the buzz-word about Miami. Under the circumstances I am going to limit the number of Miami pictures to one.Wikidemo 14:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I like these proposals and agree with them. If it is any help, I have found: a usage here and here of Diane Feinstein's pro-growth policies being criticized as Manhattanization. Being that these are from the New York Times and Time magazine, I consider the article definitely worth having, especially considering most dictionaries would not have a definition of this.--Vince | Talk 08:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but please do be careful not to take these for more than they are worth. The two articles only establish that critics at the time used the term to describe the effects of Feinstein's pro-construction policies in San Francisco. They don't establish that the term means anything, or that it actually occurred, etc. Just that it was a term that had some currency then.Wikidemo 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)