Whats your prefered planning style?

[Godrick 0]

This has been a topic discussed more than once before, but I've seen a lot of posts discussing problems that different people have had with various styles of "Planning".
I am re-posting a comment I made on another thread and I am asking the question: What's your style? As I see it there are two major themes, but if anyone has a new style to include, or comments on my notes, let's hear it here!

...repost...
The two major themes of city planning

1. Repetitive "set pattern" layouts
   
   • Use a set pattern of "blocks" to layout roadways & zones
     
   • Difficult to adapt to changing terrain, therefore best used in large "flat" areas
     
   • Easier to plan for future expansions such as highway
     
   • High density, high population cities easier to achieve
     
   • High repetition leads to unnatural, repetitive look
     
   
   
2. Freeform layouts
   
   • Use minimal to no set patterns when building roadways
     
   • Much easier to adapt to changing terrain
     
   • More difficult to adapt to future expansions such as highway as less planning is involved. Of course, IMO the challange of adaptation can be and is a major draw of this game!
     
   • High density, high population cities more difficult to achieve and service properly
     
   • Low repetition leads to much more "natural" looking cities.
     
   
   

I tend to use a combination of these two approaches. I will use some sort of "pattern" in large flat areas, then as I approach "irregular" landscape ares, abandon this approach and go free-form. This tends to create very nice "natural" looking cities for me, albeit with lower populations (I move slow, but my biggest city is about 75K pop.)
...end repost...

[DCFusion 0]

My planning strategy is similiar. For the large cities, I always stick to a grid pattern, using a variation of the 'wheel and spoke' planning style. With this method I put my civic buildings in the center of the 'wheel' so that I can get the best coverage from each school, police etc. Plus it makes it easier to locate civic buildings to 'check up' on them. I usually do the same for medium size cities as well. For small cities, I abandon the grid pattern and give the city more of a 'neighborhood' feel with winding roads, trees, residential mixed with commercial and so on. However, if it is a small industrial city, I usually go back to the grid pattern.

[Godrick 0]

Good point on the 'wheel and spoke' strategy, I don't use it in the purest sense, although my civic buildings do tend to be located towards the center of the "grid" when I am using one.

[Kolyana 0]

You created a third way when you said "I do a combo of both, a pattern which then changes to fit irregular terrain".

And that's exactly what I do.

I tend to sit back and look at the terrain, decide where my main grid will go and how this will be affected by the terrain (I don't like completely flat, it's boring).

I then decide if it will need a future mass transit system and what this will be and how this will affect things: do I need a highway, do i need and plan on using rail? What will the layout be, what areas will it run through and what bits do i need to leave undeveloped?

The result tends to be a good combination of nice-non-repetitive look and above average use of resources, ammenities and space.

[eklinsb 1]

SimCity has always been set up to make the so-called "grid" patterns seem almost natural. Putting streets diagonal, even now, creates strange looking zones surrounding them. There is no such thing as winding roads, unless you want to spend lots of extra time (which by the way is sometimes worth it)...etc etc etc.

I try to not think about the layout too much, with the exception of making sure everyone can get everywhere, and everyone has adequate services, etc.....but beyond that I let my cities flow out freely. Sometimes I get a cool looking city...other times they come out so bad I have to delete the whole thing....

[Godrick 0]

I would still maintain that it is not a "new" style, but a mixture of the two distinct styles I mentioned. But that is splitting hairs I suppose. What I intended for this thread was more of a discussion of the different ways that people think about building their city. As this is a free-flowing game, I would suspect that there are any number of methods for planning, with advantages and disadvantages to each.

When I said that there are two different basic styles, I suppose that you might say instead that there are two different extremes: pure planning and no planning. Everything else would fall somewhere in the middle.

So I suppose the true question is: How much thought do you put into planning your city?
Say, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no planning and 10 being pure planning.

I would put my current efforts at about a 4, though I was planning at closer to an 8-9 before, but it got old real fast.

[davidny212 0]

Another aspect of planning is where you place your zone types.

List most, I place my IND on the borders. Let's call that the outer ring. The next ring is RES and the inner ring, or the center of the map is COM.

One reason I like this pattern I - R - C is that it cuts down on commute times. The Res sims can go left or right to get to work. If you zone say I C R, then your sims have to travel pass the C zones to get to the I zones. Inceasing commute time.

I am pretty random in my zoning. I don't have a set 6x6 zone for example. I do now zone longer runs and cut down on intersections to once again cut down on commute times. I also leave spaces in my zones for future goodies, like parks or the eventual mass transit system. Usually I leave some 3x3 zones so I can come back and address any needs in that area that need fixing.

Generally I try to have my highways run through city after city. One long interestate. I also like to do that with my frieght rail lines. Some of my cities don't have seaports, so I like to have a region wide rail network that connects to cities that do have ports.

So some of my planing is done at the region level too.

[jma315 0]

I tend to build my cities very organically, just building on whim as I go along. The auto road feature in zoning makes the roads more patterned than they would be if I put them all in by hand, but I usually zone in small sections so the grids don't always line up. I also would like to put in more diagonal roads because I think they make the city look more interesting. However, I tend to stay away from them because they waste space and it looks weird when the buildings are still at the same angle on a diagonal road. It would be nice if the buildings could turn to follow a diagonal road.

[Kolyana 0]

----------------

On 3/12/2003 1:41:18 PM Godrick wrote:

I would still maintain that it is not a "new" style, but a mixture of the two distinct styles I mentioned. But that is splitting hairs I suppose. What I intended for this thread was more of a discussion of the different ways that people think about building their city. As this is a free-flowing game, I would suspect that there are any number of methods for planning, with advantages and disadvantages to each.

When I said that there are two different basic styles, I suppose that you might say instead that there are two different extremes: pure planning and no planning. Everything else would fall somewhere in the middle.

So I suppose the true question is: How much thought do you put into planning your city?

Say, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no planning and 10 being pure planning.

I would put my current efforts at about a 4, though I was planning at closer to an 8-9 before, but it got old real fast.

----------------

I put a great deal of planning into how much plannign will be required ... seriously. I'll think about each city and where everything will be placed and how much of a planned city it will be, and how much grid to apply ... which always depends on the size, water, rivers and elevated terrain

[a_silent_lamb 0]

Planning factor: 7

I think planning involves several levels (so as software design):

LEVEL 0 (Strategy):

What is the theme of the city?

* farmland,low tech industry, hi tech, commercial, residential, landfill/utility, transportation gateway, record-breaking, mix?

LEVEL 1 (Macro):

The following is not efficient. I play Simcity 4 for fun and exploration, rather than for record breaking. My favourite type is still RGP in medieval setting. My "hall of the fame" game is still Ultima 4.

* On large region, 90%+ landmass:

- divide the large into 9 portions.
- a few portions as farmland, to be replaced later by residential.
- 4+ Residential zone
- 1+ industry zones, first near the power plant.
- Smaller commercial areas between the sims' working route (ie. between residents and industries).
- A downtown commercial area in the center of the map, for office.
- Currently experimenting this: railway surrounding each residential community, with stations at N W S E. They connect to the edges of industry and the commercial area.
- No particular plan for highway yet... probably same as railway.
- Can reserve some grids for airport, etc.

+-=-+-=-+-=-+
= ? = ? = ? =
+-=-+-=-+-=-+
= R = C = R =
+-=-+-=-+-=-+
= R = I = ? =
+-=-+-=-+-=-+

R: residential, I: industry, C: commercial, =: rail station, line: railway, ?: anything

* Regions with water, hill area, etc

- Free form, depending on the neighbour

LEVEL 2 (micro):

I almost always use 6*x blocks for residents, where x depends on the initial value given by the auto-road features. Then replace its center with civil service later. (I don't hear any sims complaining about redevelopment, do I? They can't vote me out of the office anyway ) For industry, just use auto-road. For commercial, sometimes 6*x, sometimes 3*x (if they are besides a railway).

Sorry it's long. So thanks for reading it.

[Ascariss 3]

Ok, here is a city that has semi planning invloved. Lets first look at the highway, in blue is connected to 2 other regions, 1 a 130,000 town(to the left) and the other a industrial city with mostlly, 80%(right of the screen)high tech. I stuck the highway in at the very beginning since I didn't want to destroy too much of my city later.

The yellow line is the railway line, and its current use is about 160% to 180% on average. The rail line is connected to subways and busses on both sides. btw the highway is also used very heavily for travelling back and forth between work,

The red area is the dirty industrial part mixed with some commercial and high tech.

The green area is kinda the commercial center, and traffic there is getting worse. The purple areas denote residential parts of my city.

When I began the city, I first put in some industrial in the red area, and then added some commercial and residential near the 1st exit of the bridge in the bigger island. I scattered some high tech industry here and there, and from time to time commercial. The grow of the city started near the highway bridge and grew steadily. The newest area is the top corner of the map. So basically most the time the city layout adapts itself to the terrain, and sometimes I change the terrain later. The only problem with the city is the LE, its 35.

[Godrick 0]

Ascariss, that is one nice looking city! I'm impressed!

[Aronion 9]

My whole idea with planning is simple. It's kind of a cutting room floor approach. First I look at the map and decide where Ind should go, where res should go and so on. Then once I start to build I take all the plans I had and throw them in the air. When the dust has settled, I just pick and choose. The only thing that is set in stone are the major arteries. I keep them as straight as possible to speed up commute times.

[hal9000 0]

I don't like the Idea of grouping I, C and R away from each other.
(like the idea with the ring)
well, Industrial on the corner is good as it solves the freight trip problem, but I found it best to completely mix R and C. I never have No-Job-Zots on residentials, and the commute times are always short!!
Why ?
That is logical: think about grouping zones like rings, C in central and R outer, commute times are not short as you always have to travel to the center regardless of where you live.

However, if you mix C and R, commute times are all time short, as Sims tend to go to the nearest job possible. (the faq even stated when they pass free jobs while on their way to work farer away, they immediately switch to the nearer job...) It not only reduces commute times, but also traffic, as only the shortest way possible is taken, and not a route across the third of the map...

[Godrick 0]

----------------

On 3/12/2003 4:55:46 PM hal9000 wrote:

...

the faq even stated when they pass free jobs while on their way to work farer away, they immediately switch to the nearer job

...

----------------

Helluva way to job hunt, huh?
"Even though I have this job 2 miles away from home, I passed one on the way to work that was only 1.75 miles away so I changed jobs!"

[Ascariss 3]

----------------

On 3/12/2003 2:47:15 PM Godrick wrote:

Ascariss, that is one nice looking city! I'm impressed!

----------------

Thanks for the compliment there Godrick. I try to keep the city more natural. Currently I am testing out a medium map, that is a bit hilly. I want to see if the houeses and buildings that are built will be affected by the altitude of the land. Currently I am at 90,000 and going well. But it hard to build roads sometimes and the worst, subways, those buggers just don't like hills that much.

[Del 0]

I'm sure Sim City 4 is taking over my brain. Still, I was reading an article in my newspaper the other day, and I couldn't help but think about Sim City 4. Hows this for agricultural zoning?


Gurskey's "Greeley"

From the article:

"This is Rawhide gone industrial, without a hint of pork'n'beans and trail coffee, an industrialised west where even the Marlboro men have quit. The grid itself - on the tilt, a bit irregular, a thing of fence-posts and roads and numbered gates - is already emblematic of a mentality. Grids are practical. They bring together and they divide. They impose themselves on the world, carrying with them a sense of order, of coordinates, of regularity. In Rosalind Krauss's great 1978 essay on the subject of the grid, she talks about the ubiquity of the grid, of its being both a sign of our materialist view of the world, and its almost spiritual, other dimension in much art, from Mondrian to Agnes Martin, Sol LeWitt to Eva Hesse. "

And you thought pre-planned cities were simply anal?

The main thing I'm interested in is efficiency and expediency. Working completely Freeform stifles that. I plan ahead, and use my favourite zone, amenity and road configurations. Set systems and grids are the most efficient and effective way of accomplishing your goals and coping with the needs of your city.

That said, even though I work to a grid, I tend to expand the neighbourhoods how I feel, and adjust the systems depending on what local effects I want to create in different areas. I like to have a variety of amenities, a residential heart, large industrial parks, and bustling commercial districts, rather than an ugly and inefficient hotch potch of zones.

I've seen cities and read city plans on the internet which are simply soulless, using a flat, square piece of land and having the zone and road layout down to a pixel. They're deathly dull, and recreating them is an empty and unedifying experience. It's far better in my opinion to develop your own strategy and find out how best to influence your city, rather than copying straight from a guide.

I'm sure you can think of the Oxfam 'Fish' quote, so I won't bother repeating it.

"Well Fed"
Del

[davidny212 0]

Ascariss I like your city. Very nice.

hal9000 I agree that sprinking your R and C togther will cut down on commute times. But to get Co development, they have to be near other Co buildings. So that means you have to cluster your C zones to get Co. Otherwise mixing R and C togther will produce more Cs. Cs likes to be near R.

So putting in a circle of C, surrounded by R would seem to be a good way to get Co development and short commute times.

On issue that rises is how to connect your aiport. Do you place it in the circle or outside the R circle?

Del Funny picture! I think you illustrate the many different approaches to the game. Some go for girds and power gaming, others try to make something more "artsy"

What is great about SC4 is region play. Probably the best innovation in the whole series. Because every city I create still matters. I can make one that is all grid, and go for the super pop. And next door make a small town on a big hill.

Before you made a city and that was that. Now all your cities can be seen togther and interact.

I have one city that is all 5x5 girds, built for subway mass transit. and another city that has many digaonal roads to make an interesting downtown area.

So I agree with a_silent_lamb that the first thing you (well I) consider is what theme do I want? And then I go from there.

[xcalbier 43]

Right now i am going for pure planed citys . you say 1 to 10 well im planing 11 or 12 as im not just planing the city but the reagion as a whole. zones comuit time subways everthing even power .
for instance iv figered out how to have the fusion power plant offered right near the start of the main city.
thus cutting out the trash . without cheating mind you .
when i get a mega city then ill go play around with small towns and sims . with how much detail is in this game i can bearly keep up with the large citys so as it is.
if i through in day and night pluse sims pluse lots of veryed tarine pluse winding streets . making a city of 1million would be extremly hard to say the least.
P.S trying much harder on my spelling and pharses.
hope this meets higher standers. lololololol

[Sharr 6]

I am really new to the game. I have been trying to do a lot of planning. I have been trying to make a "cross" style downtown with all roads leading to the center. The cross is a set of "transportation islands" a la MayorHomer's 1x6 blocks that run perpendicular to each other, extending to the 4 different directions..

However, instead of putting pretty green stuff in between the spaces reserved for the bus and subway stations, I have put low or medium density commercial buildings there. This way, I can get about a dozen or so commercial buildings in with the initial residential area without taking up blocks that are better used on residential buildings. It's not as pretty as putting down grass and trees, but I think it's efficient.

Once I get outside the intial cross, though, I am having problems deciding how to set up the transportation islands. I don't want a completely linear town that runs North-South or East-West. But I don't want to leave gaps in transportation, and I think a highway is going to be necessary.

I love the idea of transpo islands, but it works best only running north-south or east-west. I don't know. We'll see.

[jet05 0]

me, i'd agree with placing c in the middle with r surrounding it and i'll just put mass transit connecting the two when it starts to get tight. as usual, the industry and power supplies are on the corners, they'll might as well reduce freight time and pollution, and addition to all, id connect the r and c to the industry by building an avenue.

PS: and by the way this is my first post!(unusual isn't it?)

[hogmeister 7]

Planning how your cities will look is always a key part of the fun for me. I always have a civic quarter for my important public buildings, set around with lots of parks and canals, and then there is a main commercial artery lined with towers, then usually a ring road around the central area and industrial and residential districts sprawling out from there. Since I hardly ever plop anything its very much how you set out a neighbourhood that determines what will grow there, so that

[Dutchdragon 74]

I hate the grid, I think it's boring, so I plan with lots of curved roads. When it comes to high density, I zone in 4 by 4 zones, with a lot of space between them, so I can also add bus- and subway stations and parks. But the roads are
always a bit curved.

[hogmeister 7]

I am not fond of the grid either, I try and break it up with parks and open spaces and rivers as much as possible, unfortunately this is a game of boxes and that

[Superstar 69]

The one thing I always wanted in SC4 was to lose the grid. Sometimes it acts fine but most the time it can make the city or cities rather boring. I myself use the grid a lot but thats mainly because they arn't that many other ways.

[DuskTrooper 314]

I like to use the grid system in my more urban areas, as long as the grid is broken up by diagonals, roundabouts, and as long as the grids do not pass over terrain elements, such as creeks, hills, etc. In my suburbs, I either use long streets, cul de sacs, or a combo.

[JayStimson 211]

I like realistic cities the best and so I use accurately scaled maps exclusively. As mentioned above, the real challenge (at least for some of us) is to see what can be done with natural terrain. I will make minor adjustments to the terrain for seaports and other waterfront items and do a bit of smoothing (slope mod) to get clean looking transportaion routes ( I hate jagged roads and such cause it looks like a little kid was playing who doesn't know road construction crews have heavy equipment like graders).
Anyway, with this realism approach I spend a fair amount of time looking at the region first. Where will farming go, industry, commercial centers, major transportation arteries (highways, rail, and avenues). I try to adjoin industrial, commercial, and agricultural areas along city boundaries to get a realistic regional view (where it makes sense).
Once I have the regional picture fairly clear in my head, I go into the cities and lay out the main arteries and plop push pins down to mark out key areas (industry, commercial, schools, hospitals, airports, etc.) Once this is done, I start building cities that have seaports ... getting the seaports, ferries, and bridges built. From there I can start zoning and building.
As far as the grid goes ... I live with it but a hexagon system would have been much better. I use diagonals when needed to follow the natural flow of the terrain but won't zone on them because I think it looks so stupid when buildings don't face the road. It's the one thing I really dislike about SC4. I just got the diagonal street mod and am looking forward to improving the realistic look of my residential areas. Something I've always struggled with.
Stick a fork in me ... I'm done.
- JS

[kefka 3]

In real life, I think it's important for people not to get lost.  For this I think a wheel shaped design works well for Avenues.  The spokes can have names, while the tires can have numbers.  That way, wherever you are in the city, you know where you are, or at the very least, how to get on a road and drive on it untill you know where you are.

I also think it's important for residental areas to have a sense of community, and having a slightly less predictable road system for there can help.  Each area within the avenues should be unique in terms of street names, and each area should have some kind of community area in the middle, like a park, school, or church.  But the area should still be navigatable by someone whos never been there before.

 

Having a good view is also good.  If the city is in a valley, then the highway entering the city can be along the edge of the hill, giving visitors a great view of the city.  The valley walls can mostly remain forested, so that people can look out of their kitchen window and see a forest in the distance.  If the city is on flat land with nothing on it, have alot of parks and greenbelts  Things like that to make the city nice to live in.

[Murakumon 1]

I like working in large cities with smooth hills and flat valleys. i think downtown should ALWAYS be flat to some degree.

Then i start first with a aveune or mainroad, i like to make it do a lot of turns and spilting apart and all that. downtown is pretty orderly (with the exception of my whinding aveunes)
i normally build with mass transit in mind, but i don't exactly leave a planned course. i love hilly suburbs with lots of trees, seems realistic to me. i also like

basically i plan to hide simcity's more ugly parts


* EDIT use exurro's highway signs! I use them on aveunes and it makes UDI easy and adds realism. GET IT HERE

[DarthNader 0]

  Ive found that Maxisland/Timbuktu makes for a real challenge. My style is  start in the corner and then when you have enough capital I build the rest of my layout through how the Highways fall.