Commercial Services x Commercial Offices

[estevesbk 4]

Do you use the same taxes for both or do you like to favour one over another? If so, which of them you give most priority?

Consider low to mid-sized towns (25k-150k residential pop.)

Thanks!

Edit: Services seem to generate more income but less jobs, am I right?

  Edited September 24, 2012 by estevesbk  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Generally, I keep taxes parallel in all aspects except I-Ag and I-D. At year four I generally set I-Ag to 7.0 and I-D to 20.0. I want to encourage agriculture over dirty industry (I use SPAM and the ditches mod). Otherwise if income becomes too large over outgo, I start reducing taxes across the board by 0.2% at a time. Differential taxes on various classes seems to be a rather futile micromanaging process to me.

[Fatherted 129]

I favour offices. For me:

CO$$: 1.0

CO$$$: 4.0

CS$$ and $$$: 7.0

CS$: 8.5

[estevesbk 4]

Generally, I keep taxes parallel in all aspects except I-Ag and I-D. At year four I generally set I-Ag to 7.0 and I-D to 20.0. I want to encourage agriculture over dirty industry (I use SPAM and the ditches mod). Otherwise if income becomes too large over outgo, I start reducing taxes across the board by 0.2% at a time. Differential taxes on various classes seems to be a rather futile micromanaging process to me.

Thanks for another good reply! But what about our old discussion about the "Residential Pyramid"? If I don't overtax R$$$ a little they become more than 15% of the pop. And then you see where it goes... No jobs, building deterioration, etc.

I favour offices. For me:

CO$$: 1.0

CO$$$: 4.0

CS$$ and $$$: 7.0

CS$: 8.5

That's what I was thinking. Interesting you tax more CO$$$ than CO$$, is that to avoid them to deteriorate?

  Edited September 24, 2012 by estevesbk  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The thing about the R$$$ is to let them abandon and move out. You don't have to zone high-rise where they are likely to move in in great numbers. I can generally hold them to a few mansions, and I don't worry too much about abandonment. Every city has run-down neighbourhoods that only get attention once in a while. I don't necessarily have to have a shining palace on every street corner. And remember Samuel Taylor Coleridge's

"There upon the solid rock

"The dreary houses stand.

"Come, see my shining palace,

"Built upon the sand."

The problem with many players is that they are in a rush. Take your time, and control where things are. Don't make huge zones for residential, and be circumspect. I zone almost entirely 2 x 1 R lots at the beginning, which pretty much keeps the R$$$ at bay. The trick is to not create anything that is 3 or 4 in any direction, and you just don't see them. When things get big enough, I start putting out some 2 x 2 zoned areas, and let the chips fall where they may, often in high-rise tenements (R$) and MURBS (R$$).

If you slash down big zones, you will get the default result. Take some time, and hand zone those areas. You will be rewarded with a more controlled city growth.

Here is an example of using packed 2 x 1 residentials. You may need some extra lots from the STEX for this to fly. I did.

[nukeu123 307]

i for one fluctuate the taxes according to the....

1.how old the city is (i like to have agriculture and dirty low at first then later in its life time i go high tech)

2.demand

3.what i desire in the city (sometimes, i want a city space entirely to industry)

[cogeo 960]

I always recommend against setting the tax rates to a level other than the one, unless you want to tax a certain development type out (and develop it in another city). Raising taxes causes demand to drop, so this inhibits development. And if you lower them, you will be collecting fewer taxes; you may get some few extra buildings, but they will tend to not fare very well, or even dilapidate and abandon. You could try lowering CO taxes a little bit though.

[Fatherted 129]

I favour offices. For me:

CO$$: 1.0

CO$$$: 4.0

CS$$ and $$$: 7.0

CS$: 8.5

That's what I was thinking. Interesting you tax more CO$$$ than CO$$, is that to avoid them to deteriorate?

Yes, I used to keep my offices both at 3.0, but $$$ would deteriorate and $$ demand was low at the time, so I lowered the taxes for CO $$ and raised them 1.0 for the CO $$$. I was planning to up the taxes back to normal, 4.0 for both, but I found this was a great way to encourage high rises on small lots with MORE people per office than $$$, and I want my airport to upgrade (it's close to there).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

For the airport to upgrade you need to overload the adjacent (ring) roads with C traffic.

[Fatherted 129]

For the airport to upgrade you need to overload the adjacent (ring) roads with C traffic.

Um...what? It's the amount of co jobs in the city.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yes, but don't you think a lot of the CO jobs should be along the airport perimeter? Don't forget to keep the runways clear of tall buildings.

[estevesbk 4]

The thing about the R$$$ is to let them abandon and move out. You don't have to zone high-rise where they are likely to move in in great numbers. I can generally hold them to a few mansions, and I don't worry too much about abandonment. Every city has run-down neighbourhoods that only get attention once in a while. I don't necessarily have to have a shining palace on every street corner. And remember Samuel Taylor Coleridge's

"There upon the solid rock

"The dreary houses stand.

"Come, see my shining palace,

"Built upon the sand."

The problem with many players is that they are in a rush. Take your time, and control where things are. Don't make huge zones for residential, and be circumspect. I zone almost entirely 2 x 1 R lots at the beginning, which pretty much keeps the R$$$ at bay. The trick is to not create anything that is 3 or 4 in any direction, and you just don't see them. When things get big enough, I start putting out some 2 x 2 zoned areas, and let the chips fall where they may, often in high-rise tenements (R$) and MURBS (R$$).

If you slash down big zones, you will get the default result. Take some time, and hand zone those areas. You will be rewarded with a more controlled city growth.

Here is an example of using packed 2 x 1 residentials. You may need some extra lots from the STEX for this to fly. I did.

Very nice and interesting! I'm building small to mid-sized cities and it's good to have control over growth. Giving enough R$ I've learned that R$$ doesn't suffer from lack of jobs, so I tend to make their buildings historical so they are not replaced by R$$$... And now even telling them where to build what. But as I learn some SC4 mechanisms, I start over all again. I hope it's the last time that I begin again my first city. But last time I was around 50k and with 11%-12% taxes for R$$$, and none of the buildings were abandoned. I will post a Screenshot on the Residential Pyramid topic of what I'm doing when I've finished to build my first city again. I don't know if the solution is as good as yours, but it worked for now.

I always recommend against setting the tax rates to a level other than the one, unless you want to tax a certain development type out (and develop it in another city). Raising taxes causes demand to drop, so this inhibits development. And if you lower them, you will be collecting fewer taxes; you may get some few extra buildings, but they will tend to not fare very well, or even dilapidate and abandon. You could try lowering CO taxes a little bit though.

Well, but the difference is not that much. I usually don't set my taxes below 8%. 7% is my minimal, for I-A. and CS-$. And 20% for I-D. I was thinking in taxing CS-$$ and CS-$$$ to just 0.5 more of my "base tax" (the one that I use for R$, R$$ and most of the stuff) and CO-$$, to 1.0 below. 1.5% of difference should balance things out a little but don't give me much less income (CO already doesn't give much income anyway) and more encourages CO than prevents CS.

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

What I'm planning to do is:

R$ - 9%

R$$ - 9%

R$$$ - 11-12%

CS-$ - 7%

CS-$$ - 9.5%

CS-$$$ - 9.5%

CO-$$ - 8.0%

CO-$$$ - 9.0%

I-A - 7%

I-D - 20%

I-M - 9.5%

I-HT - 8%

What do you guys think?

What I can do is that if I begin to see too much cash and don't know what do to with it, lower the taxes a bit, but I wouldn't make anything less than 7%.

I still didn't "master" this taxation stuff but I think that if after my first city I keep steady to the taxes I've found more optimal on the other cities (the same taxes for all the cities), things will tend to balance themselves over time?

  Edited September 25, 2012 by estevesbk  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think you've misinterpreted the game. The number of Sims should add to 100%. They are not a fraction of the rest. The rest are the jobs, not the buildings. In general, two Sims for each job is not a bad rule of thumb.

I really wish people would stop trying for numeric solutions to this. It has far too many variables to try and put it into a box. Drop the scientific view, and get on with a little art.

[Fatherted 129]

Yes, but don't you think a lot of the CO jobs should be along the airport perimeter? Don't forget to keep the runways clear of tall buildings.

I would hate to work in an office next to an airport *coughlutoncough* and would much rather be in a city centre. Due to my city layout, it is impossible to land or take off cityside. All aeroplanes MUST land/take off riverside, with one runway for taking off and one for landing. Luckily my airport (Great Deanham Intercontinental) only shifts about 230000 people/year, even though it is heavily used for intercontinental/international flights, for national flights they must travel to Boardwalk-Riverside, and for local (within 45 minutes) they must travel to the isolated landing strip near the large meteor crater.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I see you are not a fan of HVAC?

[Fatherted 129]

I see you are not a fan of HVAC?

Meaning...?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

One seems to believe that air quality inside office buildings would be affected by an airport.

[Fatherted 129]

One seems to believe that air quality inside office buildings would be affected by an airport.

No, but wouldn't it be a bit noisy?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Only if you didn't believe in adequate sound proofing. This little engineering problem is easily solved these days.

[Fatherted 129]

Only if you didn't believe in adequate sound proofing. This little engineering problem is easily solved these days.

Still...everything vibrates, plus it sucks to have to work in a 3 story building because planes need to go over it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The low buildings only have to be off the ends of the runways. I always load up an airport with commercial buildings along the sides without runways facing them. Airports are commercial cap lifters, after all. If you build residential, you have to have noise abatement turns, and I don't think the game designers ever heard of such a thing.