Letting Go

[MrFingers 0]

I have serious issues just letting my city develop naturally in an uncontrolled, wild, and irregular way... I'm really trying to allow it to look more realistic, but it's tough for me not to over plan it and try to maximise space usage etc.  I've been getting better at it for low densities, but it's inbetween the low density and the high density grid area that I cannot seem to get right... does anyone else have this problem or am I a lone freak about this?  has anyone had this issue and found a technique to get around it?

[MrFingers 0]

Just to give you an idea of what I'm asking, two solutions I've worked out myself so far are:

Build the avenues flowing outwards from the downtown area with growing distances between them and in a squiggly line which traces down the middle of flat landscape to build on and then flesh them out with zoning.

make turns in roads outside of just junctions, ie put bends in the road that are not simply off junctions.

I guess my question is... how do you build road networks that are somewhere in between trees(low density) and grids(high density)?

[lestatdl1 0]

I have exactly the same problem. I cannot break away from the grid pattern when high denisty, downtowns, or even a group of medium density is involved. I can't handle the disorder and chaos of it; it's just too painful. I'm slowly getting there when it coems to farmland and more low denisty, rural areas. Next is low-denisty R

[JaneJacobs 1]

I count myself pretty good at the grid and at suburban style development. The transition between the two is the tough part....

If you look at my map in the transit map thread, the point of the peninsula is supposed to be older, pre-grid development. That was really, really hard to make myself do, and then hard to get the transition to the nearby gridiness.

Maybe take a look at some maps of nearby real-life cities and you might get some ideas.

[MrFingers 0]

I have found U bends off avenues are quite good

[Mystrelia 57]

Disclaimer: This may or may not make sense and of course, your mileage may vary. LOL

There's something to be said for basic grid--I tend to waffle between grid and non-grid a lot. For one thing, in a city simulator that doesn't simulate real life very well, a good grid structure works wonders. On the other hand, it may or may not be aesthetically pleasing, depending on its layout, and what one considers pleasing. What comes to mind with this thought are much of the in-game cities where housing blocks are crammed as tightly as possible with housing (mainly R$), then a diagonal road runs straight through the middle of the whole mess. The traffic in those areas is horrendous, and the sims can't be much better off than the traffic looks.

I've noticed in a lot of screen shots, when people veer too much from a grid pattern, their city looks clumsy and cluttered rather than the realistic approach they're trying to acheive. In the real world, we don't see cities from that angle so they look okay to us as we drive down the streets.

One thing I've discovered is that thanks to the awesome lots on the STEX and making a few basic lots to add something I specifically wanted is that even a city built on a fairly rigid grid system can be quite beautiful with a little bit of time and imagination. A huge help in this effort, though, has been the residential "mega" lots that are 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10 in size. In one of my cities I've used mainly the 6x6 lots, then in another city last night I decided to mix things up a bit with mostly 6x6 and a few 8x8s. Since at least some of these lots give the appearance of streets and roads running through them, with trees and amenities here and there, that section of the city is looking downright awesome to me.

I think another helpful thing in building a city off the grid, so to speak, is to have a few terrain challenges in it. You don't need a ton of mountains or valleys or rivers, just a few features here and there like a well-placed butte, a meandering river, a small valley along the riverside. Then when you put in your roads, think about how realistically they would be built. You wouldn't have a road going straight up the side of a mountain. It'd meander back and forth while it scaled the grade. On the other hand, you might well see a street climbing along a foothill to the top where more affluent citizens live. I find that a good city building map has a mix of plenty of flat space for some good grid lay-out as well as a few special features that take more creative planning. To my mind, this mix makes a nice looking city.

[mightygoose 92]

me i have this problem around rail lines, what goes between stuff and the railway....

[Mystrelia 57]

I usually put trees between my railroads and buildings. I've seen cities where people have residential butted up against the rail lines. I was totally aghast when in my own game I built housing areas like that and they developed into high-wealth! Realistically, the only housing you'll find right next to a railroad is a slum. No one wants to live right next to those things! So, I try to take into consideration what I think those little pixelated people would really like if only they knew.

Edited to add:  Of course, I also put buffer zones between ag and residential areas because most people really don't like living next to a dairy.  Then last week I read in our newspaper that the county commissioners were wanting to put buffer zones between ag and res here in RL, and both the farmers and general citizens were completely against it because it meant the farmers wouldn't be able to sell their land for development, because res couldn't be built because of the buffer zone and it would devalue the ground the agriculture is currently on, and they really needed to be able to sell that farmland for development because this was their life savings, etc., etc.  While I can see their point I was really surprised by their reaction.

[Vivicas X. Strom 1]

I think everyone has made some great points here on a topic that causes many of us to 'start again'.

The biggest thing that helps me is Terrain. Few cities are built on absolute flat land, but land with features. When i build on flat land, yeah it all goes Grid. When i build on varying terrain i find that i follow the 'flow' of the land. I'll make roads and avenues hug a slope as opposed to just tear right through it regardless of the ridiculous incline (San Fran excepted of course).

There's a feature on SC4 that i love. CTRL + SHIFT + C. This highlights the land contour and is a great place to start when setting down a city's foundations.

Hopefully i've added something to this conversation.

[RushHourFreak 1]

If your problem is terraforming, just search on STEX Cycledogg's Terraforming Tool