Talk:Urban renewal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Urban renewal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Contents

[edit] fact tags

I removed the {{fact}} from Boston's West End comment. Here's one reference, a 2000 Boston Globe article by Kathleen Howley Wake 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

"is a movement in urban planning that reached its peak in the United States from the late 1940s through the early 1970s." Did it? It seems that all western developed nations have done this to some degree, in many european states (Fr for example) it verges on obsession! Bjrobinson 03:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It should say "...that in the United States reached its peak from the late 1940s ..." -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
That makes alot more sense, i mis-read. Thanks. Bjrobinson 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

This record doesn't define urban renewal in a straightforward way in the first three paragraphs. It should. It goes right into the impact of it and the fact that it's contraversial without defining it. It appears to assume that the reader already knows what urban renewal is. I didn't, and I had to move on to another source. Please consider revising, someone. (From 06:08, June 12, 2006 67.188.87.180).

A agree that this is a very poor article, there is little or no definition and the article

focuses solely on the USA in far too much detail. I think this article should be completely re-written with a better explanation and a wider geographical focus.

--Chr1sday87 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Well, Urban Renewal IS a specific US planning and financing mechanism. It's a very specific phrase. There are similar programs run by governments around the world, but they are NOT called Urban Renewal. I've capitalized both words, to make this clear. Anyone using the phrase "urban renewal" in normal english, without reference to this specific mechanism, is probably talking about something else -- like "urban revitalization" or "urban redevelopment".


We should not make it our goal to NOT have a detailed article on US public planning. Instead of dumbing down the US urban planning page let us encourage others from other countrys to write their own take on urban planning. keep a dedicate US page because its valuable.-normlconservative

[edit] Some good sources

It's still happening on a massive scale:

Detroit Urban Renewal Without the Renewal New York Times by JODI WILGOREN. July 7, 2002 www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712122/posts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).


We should not make it our goal to NOT have a detailed article on US public planning. Instead of dumbing down the US urban planning page let us encourage others from other countrys to write their own take on urban planning. keep a dedicate US page because its valuable.

[edit] Attempting a restructure

I may have a go at a restructure and rewrite here. Grateful for any views as this article seems to have languished for a bit. Idea would be to move this article initially to urban renewal in the United States and then create a generic core article possibly called urban renewal. This would be linked out from urban planning and provide some links to country specific articles

I will probably then do a UK page in outline

Any views before I have a go

Uneirlys 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we might need to split the topics. In the US it is a much hated policy, in the UK it seemed to have fewer problems. That is one of the things that makes this article confusing. We could have:
  • Urban renewal (United States)
  • Urban renewal (United Kingdom)

and make this the disambig page. what do you think? futurebird 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new here and haven't quite got the hang of the disambiguation pages - I had assumed that they were for topics that were fairly common but could have different meaning. This appears to be rather more like a simple category division. How about - as the current page says - urban renewal for the US and urban regeneration for the UK with a cross reference in the first para

Uneirlys 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

first cut of a skeleton for a Uk page is on a sandbox in my user page Uneirlys 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats seems logical, i put a POV on here, but then i'm coming from a UK-centric POV myself where urban renewal does not have the same negative connotations, maybe that explains the POV as at the moment the page reads as a very negative view on urban renewal. Your sandbox page is coming along well, I will direct my efforts their. Bjrobinson 10:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to a separate article for any country, but i object strongly to abandoning this central article. We should be smart enough to have an umbrella article here, without reference in the title to any country. By the way a more neutral article title here would be Redevelopment. Vuong Rha 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Regeneration as a broader concept.

I believe a broader approach to Urban Regeneration or Renewal should be taken.

Reading from the Executive Summary of "The Expert Group on the Urban Environment" clearly suggests that Urban Regeneration should be considered in terms of "transformation" of the urban area to a second state.

Thence, even it is true it may mean demolition and relocation of people in order to increase, for example, transport infrastructure, it may also refer to shifting to an environmentally friendly space (e.g. " by ensuring the restoration of ecological links and the strengthening and conservation of ecological values as part of an integrated ecosystem"..)

To sum up, the article would be better defined by first, a broad concept, followed by its different approaches and criticisms.

What do u think.. ? Thanks

Cristian Valle K. (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi I consider that the current entry should stand because historically the US Urban Renewal Program/s were essentially a "slum clearance" program based on top down (Federal) directives and planning/design templates. The US policy was adopted by State Housing Commissions (eg Sydney) as a basis for actual projects and adopted in metro planning as a planning policy. Urban Renewal (slum clearance) was abandoned is Australia in 1970's by Housing Commissions due to public opposition. The Planning Policy of Urban Renewal was replaced in NSW in 1978 when a new ALP State Government adopted an overarching urban policy named "Urban Consolidation". This policy of general densification replaced Urban Renewal (Slum clearance) and low density sprawl on the urban fringe.

I was suggest another entry called Urban Revitalization or Urban Regeneration - new ubanism and smart growth and urban consolidation could be treated as subcategories.

Kelvinauld@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.148.21 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)