Talk:Urban renewal/Archive 1

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)

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.

fact tags
I removed the 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)

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:

and make this the disambig page. what do you think? futurebird 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Urban renewal (United States)
 * Urban renewal (United Kingdom)


 * 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)

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 urbanism 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)


 * "Redevelopment" is a broader, less loaded term which currently redirects to urban renewal (it shouldn't). All urban renewal is redevelopment but not all redevelopment is urban renewal.  Redevelopment refers to any new construction on a site that has something existing on it which could be a gas station or an industrial park or a neighborhood. "Urban regeneration" or "urban revitalization" are both positive terms for redevelopment (although properly speaking I supposed it's possible to do urban revitalizaton/regen without actually tearing down buildings (redevelopment) in some locations). Urban Renewal is a distinct term that probably deserves its own article but there should be an article for a more neutral term like "redevelopment" to describe the broader concept.  There are some other articles that describe redevelopment which link to this article implying a negative judgement on those projects (which may or may not be intentional) that isn't necessarily appropriate for those articles.
 * 64.132.121.227 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article need some serious work done to it- so far it is very US centric. i have nothing against this, but the idea of it being a very controversial idea does not apply everywhere. In the UK urban renewal is often welcomed. If i have some time I will add some later, but still, this article really does need to expand its scope. --Chickenfeed9 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Having had a look over this article and given the issues that are raised with the tags etc I wanted to make a suggestion that a second article is created that deals with urban regeneration as the much broader concept that it is. Generally speaking (from a UK context anyway) urban renewal is focused on physical and economic change whereas urban regen includes social and cultural regeneration. The lack of UK/Europe/rest of world context probably stems from the fact that urban renewal in its strictest form doesn't really occur anymore over here. It also why it is much less controversial, although if you go back to Maggie Thatcher and the Tories in the 1980s, the UDC's that developed then (particularly the LDDC) where not far off. Any thoughts?? --Daviessimo (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about your assertion that "urban renewal... doesn't occur anymore over here" ('here' meaning in the UK?) There are now 19 Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs) operating, and there are other schemes taking place without URCs. I'm not sure if there's a hard-and-fast distinction between urban renewal and urban regeneration - can you point towards a reliable source? My Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography (published in the UK) only gives a definition of renewal. Pondle (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was it doesn't exist in that form. What is regarded as urban renewal in the US is generally termed physical regeneration:


 * "Urban renewal ... is physical change, or change in the use or intensity of use of land and buildings, that is the inevitable outcome of the action of economic and social forces upon urban areas" (Couch, 1990)


 * Urban regen is a much broader reaching and includes social and cultural policies. The best definition I have is that UR is:


 * "comprehensive and integrated vision and action to the resolution of problems which seek to bring about lasting improvement in economic, physical, social and environmental conditions of an area that has been subject to change" (Lichfield, 1992)


 * The best sources for the article are going to be academic texts such as Urban Regeneration: A Handbook (Roberts and Sykes), Urban Regeneration in the UK: Theory and Practice (Jones and Evans) or Understanding Urban Policy (Cochrane). Whilst you are correct in pointing out that URCs are non-public bodies that instigate physical change they tend to sit along side other forms of regeneration policy that deal with non-physical regen. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good sources and definitions, thanks. I still think that the urban regeneration projects I know a little about (mainly in South Wales) concentrate on physical renewal, perhaps with a few community projects tacked on. I don't know whether there's really enough distinction to justify a separate article - maybe you could add a new section to the existing article, pointing to the differences between the concepts of renewal and regeneration, and some classic examples of 'regeneration proper'? Pondle (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the page Redevelopment has been created (by someone else), and IMO should serve as an umbrella for all these concepts. The proper term "urban renewal", due to its connotation with the particular policy and historical movement discussed in this article, is no longer generally used in the United States at least, and it seems that there are suitable alternative usages in other countries, such that this page doesn't need to serve as a general umbrella page, and can focus on that specific policy. Given the stark differences, the aforementioned "urban regeneration", "revitalization" etc. are perhaps distinctly different enough to warrant articles (see the rest of the talk page to note the distinctions), or inclusion in the existing redevelopment article, if not enough sufficient material is there. : ) cheers! Morgan Riley (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) section stricken, see below Morgan Riley (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * given the original proposal, and if there is no objection, I move that a page either titled "urban regeneration" or "urban revitalization" be created, splitting off the relevant broader content into either of those. Morgan Riley (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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 controversial 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).


 * I 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

I agree with the comments above, this is a poor article with the title "Urban Renewal" because this phrase represents a particular time-frame and history in the United States and should be separate from a world-wide discussion about "urban revitalization", "Slum clearance" "urban blight" etc. Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 and the Housing Act of 1954 initiated a long period during which urban leaders and mayors used “blight removal” as a strategy to target socioeconomic problems and revitalize urban centers in order to retain and attract middle-class residents. The Housing Act of 1954 changed the title of the program from "urban redevelopment" to "urban renewal". In order “to promote comprehensive planning” it also required each city to submit a Workable Program showing how it planned to attack urban decay… and left the real planning initiative to local governments” . . Using just Mike Davis as the source of general information is too limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malheureux72 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Niagara Falls
The last section seems incredibly POV to me, like the author is from that city. Why is NIagara Falls more notable than other cities whose historic downtowns have been demolished? An entire paragraph detailing one small city is too much to be considered 'an example'. 99.98.221.223 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Source
In some cases, renewal may result in urban sprawl and less congestion when areas of cities receive freeways and expressways.[1]

The link [1] doesn't actually support the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.196.93 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup tagging
I've recently tagged the Long term implications and the external links as requiring cleanup. I'm not very familiar with the subject, so I would certainly appreciate help from editors more familiar with urban planning.

As for more specific issues, the long term implications section appears to be a single person's opinion in both tone and content. The tone is largely persuasive in nature and also has no citations. As for content, it focuses entirely on one specific urban renewal effort without any real consideration of other efforts. It also has excessive local details that seem to be out of place for an encyclopedia article.

The external links section appears to contain far too many links and appears to be simply a repository of links and has links that appear to be advertising specific programs or are only indirectly related, such as a link promoting a PhD program. I have not cut any of them yet, but a review of external links by a knowledgeable party would be appreciated, as would sourcing some of the material currently in the external links section if it would be helpful. Exarion1 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The name "urban renewal"
I agree with the comments above that the term "urban renewal" is specifically associated with the period 1954-1974 in the US, following the passage of the Housing Act of 1949 (and later Housing Acts). Though it is sometimes used in other contexts, it is anachronistic to call Haussmann's work in Paris "urban renewal". There are more generic terms that would be more suitable for an article on radical urban restructuring of slums by a central authority, for example "slum clearance". --Macrakis (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Urban renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414055710/http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au:80/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_1729 to http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_1729

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Urban renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613021143/http://www.ourbrisbane.com:80/suburbs/south-brisbane-urban-renewal to http://www.ourbrisbane.com/suburbs/south-brisbane-urban-renewal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Urban Regeneration/Article out of date
I've been reading up on this subject and it seems that the phrase "urban renewal" is beginning to mean urban regeneration, which almost a linearly opposite process as the one described in the article. Jan Gehl uses the word on page 42 here http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/JanGehl_UrbanDesign_article.pdf, to mean the regeneration of inter city neighborhoods (i.e. bringing people back to the city rather than taking them out with the goal of reducing density).

Someone argued earlier that in the US it means reducing densities. During the turn of the 20th century almost every major city had a slum problem, and they all would have bin doing the same and probably using the same term. Today, the term seems to have gotten an updated meaning.. maybe expanding the article?

Xzpx (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that "urban renewal" is talking about a distinct movement and US Federally funded program that began with the Housing Act of 1949 and ended (ceased funding) in 1973. It was replaced legislatively by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the Community Development Block Grant approach. You seem to be conflating a very specific historical thing with something currently listed on the HUD website. I would suggest that the edits referring to "Revitalization" be removed as well as the reference to the UK unless the UK experienced a very similar movement and program, in which case it should have its own page and could be referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:0:54C3:1D6F:BD41:F8F9:7F6 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As others noted, Urban Renewal is a distinct US thing
Urban Renewal is a distinct historical movement in United States History occurring from the mid 1940's through 1973. While the programs roots could arguably predate; it is the program initiated, defined and funded by the Housing Act of 1949. If an article on "Regeneration" is desired, then it should be written elsewhere as the content on this page is obfuscating what Urban Renewal was/means in a current urban planning context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:0:54C3:1D6F:BD41:F8F9:7F6 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Urban renewal. 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/20080323122746/http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9911%2Clobbia%2C4486%2C5.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9911%2Clobbia%2C4486%2C5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC%3ABASE%3A%3Apc%3DPC_1729
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621214315/http://oxleylearning.org/geography/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ultimopyrmont_decade_of_renewal.pdf to http://oxleylearning.org/geography/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ultimopyrmont_decade_of_renewal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218005243/http://www.westwoodsa.com.au/ to http://www.westwoodsa.com.au/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 24 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayla Yang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)