|WikiProject Urban studies and planning||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Er... no they're not. Especially the one about road noise which is of local concern. I'm sure this article is not a popular one anyway, but i'm going to see what i can do with it in the next half hour. I'd have to try to make it any worse :S Bjrobinson 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah took a bit more than half an hour.Bjrobinson 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Differing Points of View
This article reads like regional planning is completely objective fact, when in fact it's a fairly controversial subject. An "encyclopedic" article should convey the subjectiveness of the subject, particularly how it impacts property rights. DG, 18 Jan 2006
Agreed, these 'tenats' seem highly POV and a recent edit has added alot of very local concerns that few at the regional level would be concerned about, ill have to think about it Bjrobinson 10:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Differing Points of View
This article reads like regional planning is completely objective fact, when in fact it's a fairly controversial subject. An "encyclopedic" article should convey the subjectiveness of the subject, particularly how it impacts property rights.
- DG, 18 Jan 2006
I completely agree. Spatial planning and all its subfields (including regional planning) is highly controversial considering its effectiveness. These discussions should be considered for this article. D. Cordoba 14:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cordoba-Bahle (talk • contribs)
Common Sense Rules Removal
The reason I removed the text is because it has nothing to do with regional planning; most of this is related to site planning, which is a completely different topic. Unless given a good enough reason to keep the text, I will remove it. Darkcore 06:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree the text is poor but for starters it's better than nothing, there would be no point to the article otherwise. We should add back the cleanup tag perhaps. An Encyclopedia is allowed to be a "how to" guide for do it yourselfers? "Common sense rules" as a heading probably should be changed to something more like "Tenets of regional planning" or something more encyclopedic sounding, I agree. Zen Master 19:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But these are not the "tenets" of regional planning. In fact, no such "tenets" really exist. Darkcore 22:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Then lets add the real tenets and/or completely fix the article. The list is at least slightly related to regional planning I believe and does give an overall sense of what regional planning is about even if it is fundamentally flawed as you point out (I wasn't the one that created the list originally, I just minutely reformatted regional planning when I noticed it on the pages needing clean up list). Without the list the article isn't even a stub, do you really prefer that over the current version? Zen Master 23:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- lol that took what? nearly 2 years? Bjrobinson 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
what is a high building code?
reword "building codes in these areas should be the highest"
No, in this context i beleive the author was talking about deisgn guidance for tall buildings Bjrobinson 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Land use planning?
Well at first I have to say that the article starts with a wrong way from the very first. Regional planning is not a branch of land use planning but one of the two elements of spatial planning. Spatial planning although has received a euro-centric meaning basically refers to the planning of space. This unfolds to urban planning which is referred to the level of a city and to regional planning which is referred to a wider territory than a city such as a metropolitan area, a region, a country or even a continent. Therefore I believe that the term land use planning should be replaced by spatial planning. Cinelab —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC).