Talk:Industrial park

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References

It'd be nice if any of this was cited with evidence. I mean any of it.--Rotten 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "unreferenced" tag added. -- MiG 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the article

I don't understand the point of the final sentence: "In Hong Kong there are three industrial estates.". Yeah, so what. In France there are ....???? In italy there are ....? What is the point of quoting numbers for any one state or territory? And to pick Hong Kong is purely arbitrary. This sentence needs deleting unless it is going somewhere.

Further: "In the UK small industrial parks containing multiple units all of the same style are known as trading estates." Not true. The phrase 'trading estate' does not and has not suggested that units are of the same style. Emeraude 22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the following statement from the criticism section in very necessary:

     "Conversely, this is often a benefit to those living in exurbs who have no desire to deal with the congestion, crime, and expense of urban areas and really don't care about arrogant opinions of those bigoted social commentators living in urban areas who stay in their cities and feel those living in rural and exurban areas are lesser people worthy of only contempt."

    The statement in not only full of malevolence, but there is no reference to who these "bigoted social commentators are." If anything, the author of the above statement is the intolerant one. Critics generally cite the enviromental damage caused by sprawl rather than the social damage. Furthermore, this critique is not "arrogant opinion" and can be backed with significant concrete evidence. 
    It hardly seems appropriate for someone in favor of suburban sprawl to take the moral high ground, considering the massive waste of land and resources that result from the proliferation of industrial parks, edge cities, and exurbs. This is in addition to the environmental harm they cause.