Talk:Model village

Disambiguation

This page is confusing - it relates to two different subjects:

1) Full scale villages such as Port Sunlight,

2) Small scale "toy" villages, such as Bekenscot.

These should be two separate articles

--Tivedshambo 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be disambiguation for miniature villages.

--Alan 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the absense of any further discussion, I've added a disambiguation link at the top. I'll removed the miniature village stuff, and put it into miniature parks instead.--Tivedshambo (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As the phrase "model village" can mean two separate things, anyone reading this article could be misled into thinking that New Earswick (for example) is a miniature town, rather than a social housing residence. That's why I removed all references to "miniature parks" from this page and created the disambiguation link at the top.--Tivedshambo (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Port Sunlight

I recently visited Port Sunlight.

That is one extensive and elaborate model village and really is a contender as possibly the best.

However, I remain biased towards Woodlands (I was born nearby).

I would say Woodlands is more "sedate" architecturally; not having entirely different styles competing for attention. The other advantages are that, whilst Port Sunlight is open plan at both front and back, ALL houses in Woodlands have their own enclosed front garden. Further, Woodlands was originally surrounded by countryside/Woodland, with the only built features being the Great North Road and "Woodlands" the Country House (which is now a social club). The colliery itself is in a dip to the WNW of the village and did not dominate the village.

Although Council Estates were later built adjacent to the village (and a further estate of less well designed tied cottages - in which I was born), two sides of the village still today back onto woodland; whilst the other two sides are separated from the council estates by wide roads and communal green land to the backs. All house on the perimeter of the village have an access path/road at the back, but then communal (or sometimes private) grassed area - as stated earlier ALL houses have a private front garden.

Houses within the village have a very large (semi communal/private) green to the back (the squares), and face each other across wide tree-lined avenues. So in front of every house they have a front garden, a pavement, a grass verge with trees, then a wide street always able to cope with two way traffic, well before the days of the motor car. In the case of "The Park", three sides of which form part of the perimeter, the rear of the houses face out of the village across the usual access road/path with the semi communal/private green behind - at the front is the usual garden, then a pavement, then a tree-lined verge, then a wide road, then a massive open green which in a way is the park itself. As can be deduced, the road around the park runs all the way around the green.

I think that, as Saltaire is a UNESCO World Heritage site, then so should be Woodlands - it is a later and more developed (much more private space etc., more modern facilities in the houses, no long terraces [though some terraces of just four houses]} model village.

I think that Stewartby (Bedfordshire) could also be a possible contender; as could the brash architectural mish-mash of Port Sunlight.

Perhaps the quality 20th Century model villages should make a joint application to be classed as a World Heritage site (albeit "split site?")

I am sorry, but I have to dismiss Bournville. It is too small and runs into other built up areas, and apparently the quality houses were only for some privileged workers. In the cases of Woodlands, Stewartby, and Port Sunlight, quality housing was available to all employees.

---

Many of the model villages in this catagory have a section with links to other model villages, I think something needs to be done to make this more standardised, either make a template for all of the articles or remove it completely. Any one else have any thoughts? --Aaronsharpe 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the cross referencing gets confusing as it tries to cover too big an area. I think there may be a case for drawing the Yorkshire model villages together. UNESCO has listed the Derwent Valley mills together as a world heritage site, and I think this more limited grouping is a good example.

Portmerion

Should we add Portmerion to the list? It is not a worker's village but is a designed community. Wales does seem a little under-represented. I was thinking Cwmbran also but that is more a New Town. SimonTrew (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition

Is "near the industrial city in which they work" always correct, or even correct in most cases? My impression is that the inhabitants of most model villages were supposed to work in the village itself or just next to it, not in a nearby city. The examples in this article also seem to fit that. However, I am by no means an expert, so I'm not sure whether the article really should be changed. //Essin (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the wording (added here in 2009) is a little confusing. The key factor is the quality of the housing and the environment, but at the time these were built it was assumed that workers would walk (or perhaps cycle) to work. I've tweaked the wording to better reflect the article content. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was something like that I had in mind when I wrote "just next to it". Thank you! //Essin (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Model villages

Some earlier English model villages are not mentioned here - Nuneham Courtenay and Milton Abbas spring to mind (13LMM (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

What about bute town near Methyr Tydfil, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.236.197 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Burchardt 1994

There are several short references to Burchardt 1994, but the entry in the Bibliography section is dated 2002. Is this just a typo or is there a missing Bibliography entry? Keith D (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed my mistake, well spotted. J3Mrs (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Model village. 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/20131004214057/http://www.jrht.org.uk/sites/files/jrht/uploads/10/10/NewEarswickleaflet.pdf to http://www.jrht.org.uk/sites/files/jrht/uploads/10/10/NewEarswickleaflet.pdf

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)