Suburbs and city-sprawl

[Ishamael 3]

I wonder if you'll be able to make big suburbs, as I find that more realistic. In Cities XL and other games, it seems like making expansive suburbs isn't feasible, at least not from videos and pictures.

I hope that with the city-core and the bigger buildings, you can see many smaller houses and more thinly spread residential areas around the city-center with some farms included as well, because why not. It exists in the real world, so why should it be hard to do? Seems like most cities are in that fashion anyway.

[Linoa06 1,374]

Well, I build my Cities XL cities with extensive suburbs and sprawling highways etc. -- I find bus and metro and trams very useful then

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Well the problem with that in SC4 was commute time. You couldn't spread things out too much or people couldn't get to their jobs. Hopefully SC 2013 will be much more commute-tolerant, because cities are definitely sprawled in real life and lots of people take an hour to drive to work.

[YUUU 65]

But it is possible to fill big maps with nothing more than sprawl....Many people have done it.

[bourneid 13]

check out the "show us your region" thread..... and the journal section... particully in the show us thread there are some impressive examples of sprawl

[Cob92 360]

It's feasible in Cities XL, but a lot of people who post CJ's just plop a city core and leave it at that.

[bourneid 13]

thats because the games ... Both sc4 and CXL focus more on that max growth... it is much more difficult to control that growth to create the sprawl effect. Take Sc4 for example... the early growth stages tend to have very simplistic residential and CS buildings.... more detail is put into the higher growth stages.... now this community has done a great job as creating the buildings and apartment complexes that are more typical of the sprawl cities... and controling your growth is the key to making your city take on that real world Americana city cores on an island of residential sprawl

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

Hmm... I guess it will depend on tile size, and what can actually be fitted into that tile, and how the game handles neighbour connections.

With the talk of smaller medium sized tiles, hopefully the transition from one tile to another will be a lot more seamless than it is now, and for example it will not be necessary to duplicate, things like fire, police, schools, hospitals in every single tile... one of the frustrations / limitations of SC4 for example was that even if I build a huge hospital right on the edge of a tile... it has no effect or impact on the neighbouring tile.

If the new Simcity can recognize that there is a hospital in the next door tile and that then satisfies health demand in that tile, (without a hospital) then yes I think that realistic city sprawl will certainly be possible.

[VMIUJcadet09 250]

I have been able to create relatively sprawled out cities in SC4 and CXL2012. In SC4 my strategy is usually natural growth and I eventually develop low-density suburbs around my cities--but usually takes quite a while. To solve the commute problem I've developed what amounts to "edge cities" so abandonment isn't really an issue. That, and good highways and transit options.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I think as long as GB allows for commuting long distance and intercity effects of services as Craig mentioned above then there shouldn't be any problem creating vast areas of sprawl. Sydney is a very sprawled city, and only a small part of its overall conurbation is high rise. If GB is resource based, and if agriculture acts as it does IRL as resource utilisation, then a city could be grown realistically outwards, hopefully.

The main thing I would like to stress to Maxis (yes I can feel your presence here) is that we must have long distance commuting. If a Sim could advance then he would begin searching further afield for better paying work, maybe even in another region. If a Sim has to remain static with GB (I still don't quite get that 'new Sim each day' concept) then higher wealth Sims should either change their jobs every now and then or look for the best jobs, and either way those jobs may not be within the city limits. Now if a high educated Sim with skills sees a job advertised across the other side of the region (Please allow GB to have intercity advertising) then he/she should be able to take the train/car/ferry etc to it, rather than have to settle for a lesser paying local job.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

Well I also live in a very sprawled out low density city... (Auckland, NZ)...

The city, suburbs and gulf islands cover an area of 637km2 with a population of around 1.25 million. From north to south it is around 150 km.

The main thing I would like to stress to Maxis (yes I can feel your presence here) is that we must have long distance commuting.

My daily commute of about 30 km (car, train and bus) takes around 1 hour 15 minutes. In my city this is totally realistic and common.

My style of playing SC4 is very low density, rural, with small isolated residential up long winding gravel roads. Normally SC4 would not handle this well at all, so as a work around, to actually get my Sims to commute even a couple of km to the nearest source of employment, I use subways... (disguised as a tree lot)... realistic? Of course not, but it is the only way I can play SC4 the way I want to.

So I also do hope that the Maxis developers to keep in mind that, not everyone wants to build a massive high rise skyscraper jungle.

[elavery 1,013]

Well I also live in a very sprawled out low density city... (Auckland, NZ)...

The city, suburbs and gulf islands cover an area of 637km2 with a population of around 1.25 million. From north to south it is around 150 km.

The main thing I would like to stress to Maxis (yes I can feel your presence here) is that we must have long distance commuting.

My daily commute of about 30 km (car, train and bus) takes around 1 hour 15 minutes. In my city this is totally realistic and common.

My style of playing SC4 is very low density, rural, with small isolated residential up long winding gravel roads. Normally SC4 would not handle this well at all, so as a work around, to actually get my Sims to commute even a couple of km to the nearest source of employment, I use subways... (disguised as a tree lot)... realistic? Of course not, but it is the only way I can play SC4 the way I want to.

So I also do hope that the Maxis developers to keep in mind that, not everyone wants to build a massive high rise skyscraper jungle.

I see those Auckland commutes haven't changed since I lived there.

[Ishamael 3]

I have a different question, one about graphics that are tied with the city-layout.

I notice how in trailers, videos and pics from Cities XL and now SC5 that especially tall buildings seem to stand in a way that whe you look at the immediate ground around it, it looks so unnatural. You'll hardly ever see a building of that size out in such a green area. Or yet again with my first question, it looks like there's a small, small city-core and almost nothing around it but roads leading out.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Many people have made realistic looking cities in cxl but many choose not to.

[MINIggy03 227]

Sprawl should play a much more active role in the simulation now that density is no longer zoned but grown. In order to turn Main Street into a large city we'll have to build out to get the population we need to flow into town centers that create the demand for higher density. Basically, we'll need to create healthy arteries of Sims flowing through our networks to build cities and keep them strong and growing.

This is a fun video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYhGyicPTpk

I have a different question, one about graphics that are tied with the city-layout.

I notice how in trailers, videos and pics from Cities XL and now SC5 that especially tall buildings seem to stand in a way that whe you look at the immediate ground around it, it looks so unnatural. You'll hardly ever see a building of that size out in such a green area. Or yet again with my first question, it looks like there's a small, small city-core and almost nothing around it but roads leading out.

The trailer is not the actual game. We have yet to see any cities or real gameplay beyond the glassbox demonstration that have so far only shown the basics on the simulation.

  Edited May 21, 2012 by MINIggy03  

[Mark Waybill 242]

Very nice video. If Maxis is watching, that video is what I want to be able to have in sc5.

Anyway, returning to sprawl, I doubt the unrealistic transportation sim of 4 will be retained. Hopefully, as long as GB works as well intercity as it sounds like it will intracity, we will finally have truly realistic commuting behaviour.

[Ishamael 3]

Sprawl should play a much more active role in the simulation now that density is no longer zoned but grown. In order to turn Main Street into a large city we'll have to build out to get the population we need to flow into town centers that create the demand for higher density. Basically, we'll need to create healthy arteries of Sims flowing through our networks to build cities and keep them strong and growing.

This is a fun video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYhGyicPTpk

I have a different question, one about graphics that are tied with the city-layout.

I notice how in trailers, videos and pics from Cities XL and now SC5 that especially tall buildings seem to stand in a way that whe you look at the immediate ground around it, it looks so unnatural. You'll hardly ever see a building of that size out in such a green area. Or yet again with my first question, it looks like there's a small, small city-core and almost nothing around it but roads leading out.

The trailer is not the actual game. We have yet to see any cities or real gameplay beyond the glassbox demonstration that have so far only shown the basics on the simulation.

What do you mean that the new game won't have zoning? Did they say this somewhere? This sounds very interesting, though. However, it does kinda stray from the urban planning known in real life today.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

It has zoning but the developers say that they don't have density based zoning.

[2farnorth 26]

No density zoning? If this is true, this could ruin small towns in highly populated regions, by creating a skyscraper on High Street, and a tower block on a cul de sac. It could, effectively, force people to play in gigacities if there is no make historical button/ zone tool. Realistic, sprawling suburbs should be an option for players, along with the concrete jungle, and sparsely populated, rural areas should be possible too, without subways.

[Christos Alabalistos 3]

Well the problem with that in SC4 was commute time. You couldn't spread things out too much or people couldn't get to their jobs. Hopefully SC 2013 will be much more commute-tolerant, because cities are definitely sprawled in real life and lots of people take an hour to drive to work.

Oh so true. As I commute to Atlanta everyday. Rush Hour is horrendous as we have very poorly planned interchanges. Sometimes it takes an hour and a half to get home. However unlike the sims in SC4 I have no desire to abandon my house in the burbs due to commute time.

[Cob92 360]

No density zoning? If this is true, this could ruin small towns in highly populated regions, by creating a skyscraper on High Street, and a tower block on a cul de sac. It could, effectively, force people to play in gigacities if there is no make historical button/ zone tool. Realistic, sprawling suburbs should be an option for players, along with the concrete jungle, and sparsely populated, rural areas should be possible too, without subways.

I'm curious to see how the no density zoning thing turns out. Realistically, it shouldn't turn every town in the vicinity of a major city into Skyscraperville. Houston has no density zoning and yet consists mostly of small homes and apartments, strip malls, and open land, with urban clusters interspersed. Of course, modeling the density patterns of cities without a zoning model may be too complex for SimCity, since that also takes into account lifestyle choices and needs, gasoline prices, car culture, the perception of large cities and urban life in general, and cultural norms that dictate whether the average citizen aspires to live in a luxury condo downtown or in a 4-bedroom suburban McMansion.

[Ishamael 3]

Yeah, I find it hard to make a game controllable without density zoning. It exists in real life as well, only in a different manner.

[zahrul3 472]

No density zoning? If this is true, this could ruin small towns in highly populated regions, by creating a skyscraper on High Street, and a tower block on a cul de sac. It could, effectively, force people to play in gigacities if there is no make historical button/ zone tool. Realistic, sprawling suburbs should be an option for players, along with the concrete jungle, and sparsely populated, rural areas should be possible too, without subways.

I'm curious to see how the no density zoning thing turns out. Realistically, it shouldn't turn every town in the vicinity of a major city into Skyscraperville. Houston has no density zoning and yet consists mostly of small homes and apartments, strip malls, and open land, with urban clusters interspersed. Of course, modeling the density patterns of cities without a zoning model may be too complex for SimCity, since that also takes into account lifestyle choices and needs, gasoline prices, car culture, the perception of large cities and urban life in general, and cultural norms that dictate whether the average citizen aspires to live in a luxury condo downtown or in a 4-bedroom suburban McMansion.

If there is no density zoning, the density and the buildings growing on them should be dictated by commute time(ie. higher commute time = low density). I'm sure that's within the limitations of the game. Supposedly its to make the game far more easier for casual gamers who don't know that there's a fansite dedicated to simcity.

[2farnorth 26]

No density zoning? If this is true, this could ruin small towns in highly populated regions, by creating a skyscraper on High Street, and a tower block on a cul de sac. It could, effectively, force people to play in gigacities if there is no make historical button/ zone tool. Realistic, sprawling suburbs should be an option for players, along with the concrete jungle, and sparsely populated, rural areas should be possible too, without subways.

I'm curious to see how the no density zoning thing turns out. Realistically, it shouldn't turn every town in the vicinity of a major city into Skyscraperville. Houston has no density zoning and yet consists mostly of small homes and apartments, strip malls, and open land, with urban clusters interspersed. Of course, modeling the density patterns of cities without a zoning model may be too complex for SimCity, since that also takes into account lifestyle choices and needs, gasoline prices, car culture, the perception of large cities and urban life in general, and cultural norms that dictate whether the average citizen aspires to live in a luxury condo downtown or in a 4-bedroom suburban McMansion.

If there is no density zoning, the density and the buildings growing on them should be dictated by commute time(ie. higher commute time = low density). I'm sure that's within the limitations of the game. Supposedly its to make the game far more easier for casual gamers who don't know that there's a fansite dedicated to simcity.

Well under this theory, a block of R$$ next to a block off comercial making up a small town could develop into 2 skyscrapers.

I feel if there is no density zoning, the density should revolve around:

1 Land value

It would just cost too much to build a small house in the middle of skyscraperville. Land that has a high value (City centre, by a main motorway, in a generally wealthy area, ect) should develop into skyscrapers. Lower value land in the suburbs will develop into 4 person houses, and maybe the odd apartment block.

2 Transport links

Imagine if the game decided to put a skyscraper on a small country road. The road will soon become badly congested, making life a misery for the locals. A massive tower block would also clog up small residential streets. Skyscrapers should only grow near major transport links and arterial roads (near a avenue NWM style one way road, or near subway/ el rail / rail connections). This would be the only way to support such massive skyscrapers.

3 Available land

You don't see a skyscraper just surrounded by nothingness. The game should have a certain threshold of development ( about 3/4 of all the land in a city tile) before it even considers building a skyscraper anywhere. This threshold shouldn't include farmland, so realistic farming communities can be built.

These 2 factors would stop skyscrapers from growing in most stupid places, but other factors would need to be taken into account, like the scenery, historical areas, and more. Basicly, it would probably cause Maxis more trouble than its worth to implement a realistic, no density system.

[zahrul3 472]

SC5 and the glassbox engine probably has growth stages like in SC4.

Well under this theory, a block of R$$ next to a block off comercial making up a small town could develop into 2 skyscrapers.

I feel if there is no density zoning, the density should revolve around:

1 Land value

It would just cost too much to build a small house in the middle of skyscraperville. Land that has a high value (City centre, by a main motorway, in a generally wealthy area, ect) should develop into skyscrapers. Lower value land in the suburbs will develop into 4 person houses, and maybe the odd apartment block.

2 Transport links

Imagine if the game decided to put a skyscraper on a small country road. The road will soon become badly congested, making life a misery for the locals. A massive tower block would also clog up small residential streets. Skyscrapers should only grow near major transport links and arterial roads (near a avenue NWM style one way road, or near subway/ el rail / rail connections). This would be the only way to support such massive skyscrapers.

3 Available land

You don't see a skyscraper just surrounded by nothingness. The game should have a certain threshold of development ( about 3/4 of all the land in a city tile) before it even considers building a skyscraper anywhere. This threshold shouldn't include farmland, so realistic farming communities can be built.

These 2 factors would stop skyscrapers from growing in most stupid places, but other factors would need to be taken into account, like the scenery, historical areas, and more. Basicly, it would probably cause Maxis more trouble than its worth to implement a realistic, no density system.

SC5 and the glassbox engine probably has growth stages like in SC4.

  Edited May 23, 2012 by zahrul3  

[Cob92 360]

SC5 and the glassbox engine probably has growth stages like in SC4.

Well under this theory, a block of R$$ next to a block off comercial making up a small town could develop into 2 skyscrapers.

I feel if there is no density zoning, the density should revolve around:

1 Land value

It would just cost too much to build a small house in the middle of skyscraperville. Land that has a high value (City centre, by a main motorway, in a generally wealthy area, ect) should develop into skyscrapers. Lower value land in the suburbs will develop into 4 person houses, and maybe the odd apartment block.

2 Transport links

Imagine if the game decided to put a skyscraper on a small country road. The road will soon become badly congested, making life a misery for the locals. A massive tower block would also clog up small residential streets. Skyscrapers should only grow near major transport links and arterial roads (near a avenue NWM style one way road, or near subway/ el rail / rail connections). This would be the only way to support such massive skyscrapers.

3 Available land

You don't see a skyscraper just surrounded by nothingness. The game should have a certain threshold of development ( about 3/4 of all the land in a city tile) before it even considers building a skyscraper anywhere. This threshold shouldn't include farmland, so realistic farming communities can be built.

These 2 factors would stop skyscrapers from growing in most stupid places, but other factors would need to be taken into account, like the scenery, historical areas, and more. Basicly, it would probably cause Maxis more trouble than its worth to implement a realistic, no density system.

SC5 and the glassbox engine probably has growth stages like in SC4.

Growth stages don't stop skyscrapers from growing in a town 90 miles from the city center. In SC4, growth stages are regional, so if I wanted to, I could build skyscrapers far away from my main city, so long as the regional population was high enough. I think SC3000 had the right idea tying things heavily to land value; developers aren't going to waste money putting up towers when they could throw up subdivisions and office parks for half the cost. But, if land is super expensive, suddenly building a sprawling, low density metropolis becomes prohibitively expensive and building upwards becomes a necessity.

[Supertask 29]

I have no problem creating loads of suburban sprawl in SC4, indeed it's one of the easiest things to cater for. I think you just need a fairly large built-up town first for it to grow around.

Is it really confirmed there is no density restriction zoning? Is there an article anyone can link to for that, because that's a pretty radical change.

[fredrik001 9]

Well I also live in a very sprawled out low density city... (Auckland, NZ)...

The city, suburbs and gulf islands cover an area of 637km2 with a population of around 1.25 million. From north to south it is around 150 km.

The main thing I would like to stress to Maxis (yes I can feel your presence here) is that we must have long distance commuting.

My daily commute of about 30 km (car, train and bus) takes around 1 hour 15 minutes. In my city this is totally realistic and common.

My style of playing SC4 is very low density, rural, with small isolated residential up long winding gravel roads. Normally SC4 would not handle this well at all, so as a work around, to actually get my Sims to commute even a couple of km to the nearest source of employment, I use subways... (disguised as a tree lot)... realistic? Of course not, but it is the only way I can play SC4 the way I want to.

So I also do hope that the Maxis developers to keep in mind that, not everyone wants to build a massive high rise skyscraper jungle.

Download NAM and RHW. With those come some kind of commute-time-decreaser-thing, which makes it possible for a sim to travel all the way across the region. I myself prefer to create a dense CBD with tall skyscrapers, about 20-50 thousand people living around it in downtown apartments, and after that hundreds of thousands of single family homes sprawling along extensive highways.

[flowmotion 24]

Well, SimCity has always been more normative than descriptive in its simulation. They have a greater bias towards density and mass-transit than has actually existed in post-war American planning. Some of this is based on environmentalism or idealism that states that sprawl is "bad". But anther big factor IMO is that tall buildings simply look nicer on a computer screen, and many players would prefer a "New York" rather than a "New Jersey". Houston exists, but it's a boring city to 'fly over' in Google Maps.

However, if the economic model really "works", it should be possible to build tons of suburban sprawl in the cheap oil 1950-2010 period. However, what happens when oil resources run low and your sims start refusing to drive long distances? Can you build out mass-transit and increase density? Is there an electric car reward? Or does your economy collapse? If the simulation operates at that level of depth, these could be really fun possibilities to explore.

[basharg 0]

Check out this article:http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/simcity-building-your-metropolis-using-common-sense-visual-aids-instead-of-stat-sheets/

What do you guys think ?