Talk:Living street

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mino109.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living street or woonerf?

Is it a Living street or a woonerf? On the Dutch radio they told that in the English Language there isn't an english word for this. See Woonerf and nl:woonerf. 84.31.63.205 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English technical equivalent of the woonerf is the Home Zone Maplefanta (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very pro-"living street". It needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.156.221 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–I completely disagree. this article is describing the theory of a living street and does so in a very neutral fashion. i have removed your dispute of neutrality. Maximilian77 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV policy states "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Learn to read. 205.153.156.221 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually know any planning concepts that would not be 'pro', it is pretty particular about the profession. Woonerf concept is pro-woonerf, Shared Space is pro-shared space, eco-city is pro-eco-city and etc.. That tag does not really have any uses in here unless someone wants to play a childgame. Maplefanta (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the confusion between the living street and the woonerf by explaining the differences, such as the rules regarding vehicular traffic as well as the different street design concepts the living street design incorporates: the green street, the cool street, and the complete street. Gendron.Katelyn (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2020 (EST)

Merge with similar concepts

I'm pretty sure the concept of a "living street" and "shared space" are identical but are split across borders. The shared space article mentions an entire village/subdivision in the Netherlands where the concept is applied but doesn't mention that many other small sections in the netherlands use a similar concepts. Woonerf is a set of regulations in the Netherlands for this particular type of traffic-calmed zone. "Living street" is a design standard and "shared space" is the synthesis between the regulations and the (non-)road design. All of these concepts deserve more mention and differentiation on the traffic calming page; they are alternatives to speed humps, tables, bumps and such. The concept of complete street is in many ways the opposite of living streets, but is also traffic calming. Serious cleanup and organization is needed before neutrality should even be an issue. Don't have a semantics war; somebody pick a name for this new but unified concept. 75.161.90.113 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept associate better with Street Reclaiming, The Shared Space is quite a particular innovation. All these concepts (Woonerf/Home Zone, Zone 30, Street Reclaiming, Living Street, Pedestrianisation, Shared Space) are all particular elements or philosophy under the umbrella of Traffic Calming AND City revitalisation. Maplefanta (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of this article (Living streets) suggests that this concept contrasts with the Shared space concept in its treatment of motorists:

A living street is a street in which, unlike in most 20th century streets[citation needed], the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole. It is a space designed to be shared by pedestrians, playing children, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. This contrasts with the shared space scheme philosophy which gives all road users equal priority in community spaces.

I would be very concerned if the beautifully egalitarian concept of Shared space was tainted by associating it with a concept where "the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole". -- de Facto (talk). 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the confusion between the living street and shared street by explaining the different street design concepts the living street design incorporates: the green street, the cool street, and the complete street. Gendron.Katelyn (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2020 (EST)

Could we use a lead image with some people in it?

I can't help noticing that lead image has no people in it at all. Surely that is not really the point. Would it be better to use a picture with children playing and adults spotting and chatting etc? PeterEastern (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

The article has two major problems:

It is completely unreferenced
Its interwikis and country-specific cases present a good deal of confusion. I have read several non-English wikis and see that many of them are something akin to but not exactly as "living street" and "shared zone".

To fix this, we need :

(a) to write country-specific articles (I added two red links)
(b) Provide solid references which
- (b1) Clearly discuss the concept of "living street"
- (b2) Clearly establish relations with similar concepts, such as "woonref", "shared zone", etc.

Otherwise, I am afraid I will start to delete big chunks as a well-meaning, but nevertheless original research, for the reason I mentioned above: while in general the concept is understandable, in detail there is quite a lot of confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I have spent a couple of hours doing some initial structural work on the articles to remove the considerable duplication across the many similar articles. Assuming that there are no big objections to these changes the next stage will be to work on the quality of this article and then the articles for each country. Personally I am also interested in adding background content about the 'Safe Streets for Children’s Play' in New York (implemented first in 1909) which were later imported into the UK with the 'Street Playgrounds Act 1938'. See Play streets in London timeline for details.PeterEastern (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made improvements to the article which resolve issues pertaining to the concept of the "living street" and the relationship it has with similar concepts. I have additionally included country-specific history as well as influence from other countries in street design in the United States. References were used to establish reputable sources and interwikis were used where possible for clarification on particular concepts. These additional references satisfied the prior warning message regarding the need for inline citations, and the addition of country-specific history fulfilled the need for more information relevant to the United States. Gendron.Katelyn (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2020 (EST)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Living street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070721025550/http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/images/legislation/signing_02.jpg to http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/images/legislation/signing_02.jpg

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]