City Design Concept -

[mcwesty2000 0]

Date:6/8/2004 8:33:35 AM
Author:Morhavoc

I know Edinburgh well, i used to come from there. It has some very historic and beautiful areas, the inner city area has very good MT using buses in an inner ring, but also in an outer ring to get to other parts of lothian that edinburgh has swallowed like many capitals. The bad areas like sighthill are on the outskirts which is probably why there are such problems there due to social exclusion and poverty. I like the way Edinburgh is planned out, but Glasgow is one of the forefront Scottish cities that is going under new smart urbanism and development. I like Glasgow with the way it is laid out in grid streets like an american city, and it's new waterfront areas. It still has the remnants of being an industrial city, but you can see that is slowly changing. Edinburgh though has nearly always been a financial capital and you hardly see any industrial there, in fact the Brewery which was situated right in the centre of the city has just closed down which was the last remaining Manufacturing industry in Edinburgh. I come fron Stirling, situated in the middle of both Glasgow and Edinburgh, we are actually now proclaimed a city lol i don't know why though with a population of around 80,000.

quote>

 

Ye your rite, Edinburgh sits on its laurels where as Glasgow is quicker to adapt to new changes and hasnt been afraid to try new things. Edinburghs more constrained as its centre has 2 World Heritage sites (Old and New Towns).

Im from Glenrothes in Fife originally, as u prob know its a planned former New Town like East Kilbride, Livingston, Cumbernauld and Irvine.

I was glad to see Stirling became a City. Its a really nice place with good shopping. I have friends that go2 uni there.

The thing I dont like bout Glasgow is its major social and drug probs, and estates like Easter House! Plus Glasgow is currently the murder captial of Europe.

GREAT for a night out tho!

[mcwesty2000 0]

Date:6/6/2004 8:08:21 PM
Author:senekerk

 

In this photo I mixed density as well as industry, residential and commericial. I used the Paris bldgs near the water sort of like some of the bldgs you all showed. More parks were added. I used a lot of pedestrian walkways, and small corner grocercies in ther next photo

 

Opps pictures are out of order. This shows parks and beaches along the waterway, no bldgs. or house this is aprotected area. Now the next picture does show pedestrian walkways .

 

 

 

Heres an example of a pedestrian walkway system ive been trying.

 

 

The walkways lead from the housing, to the services like the school, clinic, and neighbourhood shopping centre.

[senekerk 0]

Date: 6/8/2004 8:54:08 AM
Author:

Date:6/6/2004 8:08:21 PM
Author:senekerk

In this photo I mixed density as well as industry, residential and commericial. I used the Paris bldgs near the water sort of like some of the bldgs you all showed. More parks were added. I used a lot of pedestrian walkways, and small corner grocercies in ther next photo

Opps pictures are out of order. This shows parks and beaches along the waterway, no bldgs. or house this is aprotected area. Now the next picture does show pedestrian walkways .

Heres an example of a pedestrian walkway system ive been trying.

The walkways lead from the housing, to the services like the school, clinic, and neighbourhood shopping centre.

quote>


Ok but your arrows show them walking on streets or roads to reach the school. I guess that is the limitations of the game.

[mcwesty2000 0]

Ye I know, but as i said before buildings have to face onto roads and this limits what u can do. It would be so much better if the buildings could face onto pedestrian zones, they seem to turn their backs on the walkways in the game.

 

My example shows that walking to the school or the clinic is a shorter distance than going by car.

 

In actual fact completely segragated public footpaths actually present problems in themselves. They become dangerous especially at night, and people sometimes use them as mopehead rally tracks!

[senekerk 0]

Here are two photos showing Alcona new Town. The Circus is not round (again the limitations of the game,)

 

I do not plan to build the whole city this way just this portion. What do you think?

 

 

 

 What books would you recommend ref: Smart Growth New Urbanism? I may hit the library and search for more pictures of Edenburgh.

Have a Happy 21st.

 

[mcwesty2000 0]

Thats actually really smart, I take it the land in the middle is private and the general public wouldnt have access to it?

Below is another section of Edinburgh's New Town which would be easier for you to create as its pretty much all straight lines.

You can see one of the cities cathedrals which looks similar to the ones in your example.

Shame the game doesnt allow curves, u cant even have buildings running at diagnals like the roads, they make a funny staggered effect.

Ive got a really good book on Amazon.

 

Its called An Essay for Today, the Scottish New Towns. (Click below)

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1873190476/ref=sr_aps_books_1_2/202-0732337-9338252

 

Its got alot of the New Urbanism topics from the past 40-50 years., and covers all the pedestrian walkways I refered to earlier.

 

But there are Really good Urban Designers Compendium you could get from the English Partnerships Website. (click below)

 

http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/publications.htm

 

I wrote to them telling them im a planning student at university and they sent me one for free.

 

 

[+Guest]

Date: 6/8/2004 10:27:29 PM
Author:

Here are two photos showing Alcona new Town. The 'Circus' is not round (again the limitations of the game,)

I do not plan to build the whole city this way just this portion. What do you think?

What books would you recommend ref: Smart Growth New Urbanism? I may hit the library and search for more pictures of Edenburgh.

Have a Happy 21st.

quote>

Gklnglanrgsnregalnfngagn!!!!!! Ilike! Are these buildings on the BEX?

These buildings are extremely reminiscent of the circus in Bath. In case you didn't know, Bath is a VERY, VERY ultraposh Georgian town in the middle of England, dripping with history. Sorry I can't get any pix of it now, I might put some up later.

Here's a PDF with some real-life examples of New Urbanist settlements and redevelopements throughout the US, as well as extremely detailed insights into every concept and theory of New Urbanism, as well as oppositional statements to the stereotypical and false views of density.

It gave me loads of ideas and inspiration for SC4 for me.

PDF File

[mcwesty2000 0]

Yes Bath's beautiful as well.

[mcwesty2000 0]

[+Guest]

Sorry it's a link, but I don't have a hosting account LOL

The Royal Crescent, Bath.
I couldn't find any aerial shots, after 15 pages on Lycos, I gave up!

[senekerk 0]

ATPJohn- Yes the bldgs are on the LEX- They are JENXPARIS You can find them under Landmarks.

Here another photo and thanks guy for the links. Cheers

 

 

 

[senekerk 0]

See I have Sims who walk to work now. Thanks for all the help. I've ordered suggested books thanks

 

[mcwesty2000 0]

No probs, can I suggest if you have purchased the book on the Scottish New towns then read the section on Cumbernauld.

 

The towns design has gone very wrong and its good to read how it went so wrong.

[simulcra 0]

Woah!

This thread has been busy in my long long long abscence.

Exams and intensifying homework kept me busy. Then I made a pilgramige to Portland, Oregon
the past few days. Once I get my pics scanned in, I'll probably post some of the more
relevant ones (and the ones among my favorite), which I'll consequently also be posting
at cyburbia.org.

First, some real life things I feel I need to say. I was quite impressed with the quality
of living (although it's arguable since I was there all of three days) esp in the center city.
There's a high number of homeless people clustered in the downtown, especially since
wandering around Hyde Park/The Loop in Chicago, I don't see too many homeless. Regardless,
more relevant for simcity, I got to see some of the ToDs face-to-face.

Orenco station, which I mentioned earlier, is AMAZING to see. It's hard to believe this is
in the midst of suburbia, especially an undeveloped suburbia (there are open fields all
to the west and east of the development). There's a variety of housing stock, a variety of
architecture, and I was there on a sunday early afternoon and there was lots of foot traffic.
They had a farmer's market (where I had some incredibly awesomely fresh berries... go Oregon
farms!), and everything was linked together for easy walking. It's one thing to look at a map
and some pictures, it's a completely different thing to actually see it in person.

There were some ToDs that made me curious in a bad sort of way. Willow Creek was off one of the
west MAX (Portland's light rail) stations, but if it weren't for the fact that I saw a man working
on his lawn, I would've thought it was still under construction and simply close to finishing.
There were very few cars and very little sign of life. Same with Beaverton TC, although not nearly
to the same degree. If it weren't for the fact it was a sunday morning, I would've attributed it to
the fact that most of the people would've been at their jobs.

The city blocks in Portland are absolutely puny. A whopping 200 ft square in downtown and pearl
district. In simcity terms, that's about a 4x4 grid, which is probably the smallest optimal grid.

As for the comment on greenbelts, I'm not sure if this was answered adequately (I skimmed pages
3 and 4), but there are a few US cities that have tried the greenbelt strategy. I think
Denver is one of them. Or was it Boulder? Well, one of the two major Coloradoan cities. The
problem with a greenbelt is that the government actually has to buy that land to prevent private
development, so they can't buy everything around the city. So you have a greenbelt surrounding
the city that's maybe 5 miles wide... so private developpers just leapfrog past it and build outside,
just making things worse since you now have commuting traffic being funneled through very few
arteries in an undeveloped area. In Maryland, the government is trying to buy up land as part of a
Legacy Land (or something) project to try and accomplish a similar strategy, but there its too slow
to have any impact against curbing sprawl.

The Urban Growth Boundary does seem to work, since you make it illegal to develop anywhere
outside an established metro area. The problem is, in Oregon (which makes all cities put a UGB),
the only requirement (i'm probably vastly simplifying the issue) is that there be 20 years of
allowable population growth within the boundary. If the city can't meet it, they have to expand
the UGB. Of course, the definition of allowable population growth is very flexible. If you expect
every person to live on a 4-acre lot, then you'll probably be expanding the UGB quite a bit.
Even in this case, the UGB still does a good job in making sure all parcels are developped so you
don't have something like in Phoenix or Las Vegas where you have huge suburban developments spread
out without any continuity. Portland (and I also believe Eugene) are very unique in that they want
to restrict UGB movement at all costs, so their definition of allowable population growth (actually,
I think the real term is developable land) includes massive redevelopment of existing lots. Consequently,
Portland is filled with construction projects as densities increase.

Anyways, to avoid this from going too far off-topic, lemme just add a few things that are on the top
of my mind concerning smart growth (in simcity).

In general, when I describe mixing uses, industrial and residential or industrial and commercial should
really not be mixed. Industry has such different priorites that mixing them forcibly is not good.
Traffic is good, both in residential and commercial (work with me here). Commercial properties get
more customers, desirability increases. For residential, traffic helps make mass transit feasible,
and the increased commute times by car help force residents to take more time-efficient methods.
Traffic is TERRIBLE for industry since they need to get freight shipments out quickly. Freight stations
(unless you're using a BAT freight station that's only 1 tile large) take up precious real estate, and
industry won't take any other form of mass transit. In addition, whereas a small grid works great
for commercial and residential and is in fact generally better, a small grid punishes industry. Some of
the advanced industrial buildings have massive and oddly shaped footprints (like Venkatra Pharmaceuticals).
To make the best use of your land for industry, you need larger blocks.

Personally, I think LRT (light rail transit) is the way to go in simcity. Why? Even though subway takes
up almost no real estate, and even though monorail is so much faster. This isn't exactly like smart growth,
but this is more a macro/broad approach to smart growth at large. For most cities (here I'm generalizing to
American and some Canadian/Australian), LRT serves much better as the backbone for transit than subway or monorail. Not only is it cost-effective, it doesn't require that much ridership to be easily subsidizable
or even profitable, and, in my very honest (but not provable) opinion, has much greater effect in promoting
transit oriented development. I'll get more into the real-life semantics about that later. But first,
let me tell you why I believe LRT is a better candidate out of mt options in simcity.

First. The stations allow for easy, time-free transfers. Allow me to demonstrate with some lovely
ascii art.

Here's LRT:
=======
++|
++|
++|

Here, the +'s represent the station, the |'s represent tracks going north-south, ='s going east-west.
If a sim wants to commute from A (to the west of the station) to point B (to the south), they simply
ride it to the station, disembark, wait for the next train to come, and head south. (If you don't
believe me, I can provide some pictures of transit queries distinctly showing sims disembarking and
immediately reembarking in a different direction). If you want to accomplish this monorail or el,
you either:
-+++--
|
+
+
+
|

where +'s indicate stations and | and - represent track in respective directions. In this case, the
passenger disembarks at one station, then has to WALK a few tiles to the other station, then wait for
the next rain. In case you don't know, in simcity land, walking is INCREDIBLY slow and increase commute
time quite a bit. Alternatively, you have to do the whole mess of gradually curving tracks, and then
you have to create a network of curved intersections to account for every direction. With LRT,
|
=======
|++
|++
|++
allows for travel in all primary directions without the additional time-cost of walking to another station
and without the huge mess of tracks like this (use your imagination to help)
|
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
---------
\ | /
\ | /
\|/
|
which doesn't even include the extra track you need for the stations.

In addition, LRT has built in park-and-ride. That means it has far greater accessibility for commuters, since now they don't have to be within a few tiles to walk to the station; they can drive. Imagine a monorail
with a parking lot. That consumes 12 tiles. An LRT station only consumes 6. In addition, due to the way SC works, because an LRT consumes 6 to a subway's 1, for most of your city's development, the LRT will still enjoy MORE ridership even when not considering car trips. That's because as long as a sim commutes to any tile of the LRT station, it counts as an arrival, even if they land just in the parking lot; the rest of the commute to the actual tracks is free. So, comparing an LRT station to a subway station, for a subway station, the commuter has to walk at least an extra tile (since LRT is 2 x 3), at most two extra tiles. One or two tiles
makes a huge difference in ridership in simcity, especially when you're considering a vague radius around the station. Of course, in the late game, space does become an issue and you can no longer supplement your existing network to try and relieve massive congestion (I have several stations in my center city of Newport that are at around 10000 ridership), and then subways become an excellent supplement. Monorail works best as an outer-ring connector or to connect several low-dense areas, combined with intelligent use of ToD and parking lots. El.. well, aside from flavor, it doesn't have too much of good use.

Also, LRT is dirt cheap (cheaper than roads), so you can easily make it profitable.

In Smart Growth contexts, LRT is a valuable tool. Most american cities can't support the development
of subway or monorail or elevated rail infrastructure. Seattle is the only city in America attempting a
monorail (and if you haven't been following, it's uh... well, not going along too well. Let's just say early
budget estimates for construction were quite under reality.). Aside from fiscal reasons, the density just
doesn't exist. Light Rail is much more affordable and can accomadate the appropriate ridership levels that
exist for most American cities. More importantly, time and time again, LRT spurns transit-oriented
developments. As Tri-Met said (the people in charge of Portland's MAX), they built the blue line towards the
east where the people were, they built the blue line towards the west where they wanted people to go. Subways
don't tend to have that effect since it's generally a moot point. A place that needs a subway service
generally doesn't need to have transit-oriented development. Washington DC's metro is a more unique example,
but subway there is more of a commuter rail. Downtown Arlington is massively transit-oriented but that's
because they had to fight hard to get the station and get development underway. They were successful, but
that's just one success story. Another reason why subway's don't tend to have that effect is because the
trains run underground. (Wow! Master of the obvious!) With LRT, riders are above ground and for the most
part at-grade (that means street-level). This means that potentially, businesses along the LRT route get huge
visibility. Example: along the yellow line in Portland, people invested in their businesses because they knew
that once it opened (which was may 1 this year), a huge customer base would be seeing their storefronts or
business locations just on their daily commute. Monorail has the potential to do that as well, but only time
can tell. Elevated Rail, maybe, but in reality outside a city like Chicago (where the terrible noise is
enjoyed and a part of life in Chicago), those shrieking noises simply discourage activity and people. LRT is
generally a very quiet MT system. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) doesn't have too much of evidence of spurning
transit developments, that is, without using seperate-at-grade-exclusive-right-of-way-this-might-as-well-just-be-light-rail construction techniques found
in central america and mexico. Boston has implemented BRT to a similar extent, but it's too early to tell the
success of it in spurning redevelopment.

Whew! I'm going to finish this later because my computer is in danger of overheating (stupid Texas weather)
and I don't want to lose what I just typed, so submit!

[+Guest]

...I can't believe I just read all of that

Well, 'tis a bit much to comment on, so... I appreciate your work. These discoveries and opinions help inspire and assist people. Personally, I would put it all into a report, New Urbanism in SC4, or something, and put it on the frontpage.

I'm a bit overwhelmed by the size of that post, so forgive me if I haven't given you a reply you were looking for, lol

[winkosmosis 3]

Thanks Simulcra for writing all this! If nothing else, your posts have greatly influenced this urban geography major in several ways.

[Joesocwork 4]

[joexcooldude 1]

Let me express my beliefs on this topic of urban growth.

I am one of the people who believe in the growth-boundary lines. I see it for several perspectives. One of them is the most simple, which just seeing the effect on the area as i watch suburbs spread farther and farther out. First off, sprawl destroys inner-cities. People leave the city to the suburbs, and in the process abandon whole areas. These areas become slums, and are crime-ridden. We are about to see (and are starting to in some areas) that the cycle is at it again, where the suburbs that people origionally moved into and are now leaving are starting to decay. Also, sprawl creates havoc on highway systems. The traffic gets on earlier, and creates a longer bottleneck. Anyway, the growth-boundary lines work against the cycle that abandons the inner-city. The people stay within the line, and instead build up the areas within the line. Crime goes down, as everywhere within the line soon has a higher property value. Also, commute times are small, and mass transit systems are more utilized, as they take you directly to the location (and the distance is shorter than driving). As the areas in the city get more built up, and the crime goes down and pedestrian/mass transit systems get more utilized, buisnesses also find the area more attractive.We need to focus on rebuilding the inner-cities and lessing sprawl.

[+Guest]

A very good idea when you want to have a beautifull city is to not start a city off  like superstar that made new york 2. It is not a good idea to build a massive network of long roads and avenues and highways right away. Ive done that mistake before trust me.

 

A smart thing to do is to do is to start off small with a couple of roads, and continuesly add more zones but slowly, let the other ones develop. keep adding parks, plan where you want a highway and your downtown. Then you can zone high density medium density after the entire map is full, but that doesnt mean every sqyare can to be something, you can be creative and leave some open spaces. And leave some low density for rural areas.

 

This way everything looks alot more natural and better, becouse if u start off a metropolis by just buiding massive roads, all you will get is a square looking city and all there is to it is just skyscrapers everywhere that seem out of place.

[Joesocwork 4]

Let me express my beliefs on this topic of urban growth...

First off, sprawl destroys inner-cities. People leave the city to the suburbs, and in the process abandon whole areas. These areas become slums, and are crime-ridden. We are about to see (and are starting to in some areas) that the cycle is at it again, where the suburbs that people origionally moved into and are now leaving are starting to decay...We need to focus on rebuilding the inner-cities and lessing sprawl.

In a way, that is exactly what is happening to Washington, D.C.  Some of the problems that have associated with the inner city parts here, including gangs, housing prices, and rush hour times have expanded to the suburbs, both in Maryland and Virginia.  Likewise, crime is going down in the city itself, and many people, mostly young and single are moving back in.  Unfortunately, that is causing a gentrification problem where many lower income families are being priced out.  As for me and other families, we won't move back into city while the school system is still so horrible and the housing remains so high.  I don't blame budgeting btw, the school system has one of the highest money spent per pupil ratios in the country;  I blame continued lousy management.  

[senekerk 0]

<i></i><i>
Let me express my beliefs on this topic of urban growth.
I am one of the people who believe in the growth-boundary lines</i>

<i></i>A smart thing to do is to do is to start off small with a couple of roads, and continuesly add more zones but slowly, let the other ones develop. keep adding parks, plan where you want a highway and your downtown. Then you can zone high density medium density after the entire map is full, but that doesnt mean every sqyare can to be something, you can be creative and leave some open spaces. And leave some low density for rural areas.<i></i>
 
Joexcooldude-How many cities are enacting growth boundry lines?  Under whose authority does this concept fall? Is it local city or county jurisdiction???  I like the concept but it deesn't seem prevalent in the US

Vlad--Ok I understand the need to start small and grow, and plan. but the times I have tried this in the game, I find myself rebuilding the whole city. So when you plan you leave large spaces to put in highways, avenues, etc?
I don't believe in big cities and lots of skyscrapers

here is a shot of a city I did with avenues because Iwas tried of tearing down to put avenues in.

 

 

The sky sraper I plopped. I zoned high density most of the time. It started small and grew. I guess everyone has their own playing style.

[simulcra 0]

I admit I haven't been on the forums long, but for a board dedicated to city design, there are far too many microdevelopment threads (cool highway tunnels and the like) as oppossed to macrodevelopment threads (aside from the cool suburbs threads, which indeed are cool). So, since I myself espouse new urbanism and smart growth, I decided to launch a few concepts and see if anyone else plans their cities like it. Definitions:  New Urbanism - a new movement in city planning that strives to do away with the anti-neighborhood, anti-sustainable practice currently in place by typical suburban development (arterial streets, massive cul-de- sacs, intimidating pedestrian environments, etc.).  Smart Growth - an idea in city development that seeks to refrain from sprawling out into pristine nature, normally resulting in the donut style development (where rings of suburbs continue to expand while the city center and its proximity continues to decline), and resulting in lower quality of life. Pros - higher quality of life, sustainable. Cons - higher housing prices (this is disputable since in the places where Smart Growth is heavily practice, namely Portland, Ore., housing price rises can be attributed alot to its massive popuulation growth, which always results in increased prices), anti-American Dream/freedom of choice (this may sound ludicrous to some of you, but opponents who use this argument do have a point... new urbanism and smart growth are social engineering projects, if they have too much power, they can engineer society even stronger; the problem is, what if it turns out to be wrong, or if it worsens life of citizens? citizens should have the power to choose.  However, the counter-argument is that there are alot of federal subsidies for suburban development at the expense of central city growth, so really, the market is not free to devcelop anywhere and follow the pursuits of the American dream; consequently people can only live where the market follows, even if a good number of them prefers urban life, as recent demographic trends seem to show). WHEW, ok now to the meat. Basic Concepts *Transportation* -Small blocks are strongly encouraged.  If you want the long answer why, read Jane Jacobs's The Life and Death of Great American Cities.  The short answer: in new urbanism and smart growth, the strongest transportation element is your feet - walking or biking.  I'm so terribly happy that SimCity 4 actually uses pedestrians as a valid form of transportation, and small blocks help aid walking around.  Really? you say.  Yes, I say.  Example: (= is road, . is built space) ===================== =.........B.........= =...................= =.....A.............= ===================== For a person to get from point A to point B, they would have to go around the perimeter, probably too far to walk, so they drive and add to traffic congestion. However, with small blocks: ===================== =......=..B...=.....= =......=......=.....= =.....A=......=.....= ===================== The distance suddenly becomes much shorter and there suddenly becomes a high chance the person will walk to point B.  Moreover, this small block pattern helps support mass transit.  Since most forms require people to walk, smaller blocks allow for many more ways to walk to the stop. - You might not like the idea of a grid, but a grid is the most economical and efficient transportation spine you can have.  But it makes the city look boring!  To that I respond:  it's not the layout that makes the city, it's the people who live there and the people who help build it.  Boston doesn't have an awesome central area because its road map is chaotic/fractal eye-candy.  Nor does Chicago have an awesome central area inspite of its rigid grid system (which in Chicago's case, lends to an awesome and convenient address system).  - I prefer 4 x 4 grid network.  That is, a road, 4 tiles, then another road. That's the minimal you can go and still get stage 8 buildings.  A 4 x 4 means your asphalt networks will be slower than normal (since cars will be constantly slowing down for intersections), but it provides better flow for pedestrians and mass transit.  A 5 x 5 grid network is also good and provides room for avenue expansion, but a 6 x 6 grid starts to become too large for walkability.  Although, for realism sake, outside of downtown, you may want to switch to 4 x 6, 5 x 7, or something more rectangular.  As long as your blocks are small.  If you really wanna go for realisic, once you hit suburbia, start making superblocks with subdivision developments within. - Highways and Avenues should be severely restricted in use.  They divide areas which dissect neighborhoods and create a border effect in the city.  More continued...