Natural Growth Philosophies / Mindsets

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

A solution is a cul-de-sac regarding thinking.

Nicely said. 😉

I think you are mostly correct actually. A good city cannot really be "completed". Even if its shape remains the same, the processes and structures within them are being constantly redeveloped.

We often marvel at how different our cities looked in the fifties, compared to how they look today. Furthermore, we consider contemporary times as the "thermodynamic equilibrium" of urbanism.

However, I assure you that people 80 years away from us will, likewise, marvel at how the cities of 2022 looked like. Long story short - it's never "done".

[Dreamcitybuilder 161]

On 3/7/2022 at 9:36 AM, TheMurderousCricket said:

However, I assure you that people 80 years away from us will, likewise, marvel at how the cities of 2022 looked like. Long story short - it's never "done".

But often, stereotypical pictures of "futuristic cities" forget, that cities are a mix of the present and the past. Therefore some anachronistic, and old elements will remain in the cities of the future ...

Too often futuristic thinkers think how people in the future would build new perfect cities on green fields, instead of how to "upgrade" already existing infrastructure.

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

In general, I want to create cities/regions with a narrative. It feels better to return to old cities/suburbs and such and to upgrade them. However I'm also too lazy fixing large/complicated infrastructure problems ... and I feel bad to demolish too many homes to place a broader highway or rails.

To create narratives I want to have not only something resembling "natural growth" but also "conflict" or "contrast". So something which isn't harmonic. For example wealth inequality or political tensions/politically divided regions.

[Daeris 1,116]

Hi all, I hope nobody minds the self-promo, but I've restarted my CJ with some of these natural growth philosophies in place. I'm really hoping this time I stick with regular updates!
 

 

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

It's really nice to see you back again @Daeris.

[Daeris 1,116]

@Scribosilyn Hello, thank you for the reply. Yes, I agree neither style of gameplay is better than the other. I've come to refer to them as the "Natural Growth" style and the "Natural Look" style, and here is sorta how I define the primary focus:

Natural Growth Style - Player does not pre-plan that much... they kinda go with the flow, the enjoyment comes from the element of surprise as they play, and as cities, railroads, highways, and downtown sectors seem to just form on their own... because they haven't planned anything, and it's just the region coming to life on it's own. Often times you'll hear writers describe this about their stories... the story just took on a life of it's own. That's sorta how Natural Growth style is to me. There are maybe some things you plan in the moment, but that's like any city. Humanity tends to only do/change things when they need to. The focus is really about the unplanned growth, and the wonder of it.

Natural Look Style - Player plans a LOT ahead of time. They tend to perhaps meticulously craft together some of the most realistic and mindblowing looking cities, or nature scenes, or really any scene. Some of the best CJ's tend to suggest that much planning has gone into them, and "hand-crafted" placements of MMP in order to have the scene be almost like a painting.


Like I said, neither style is better than the other, and there is definitely some crossover. Cities that use Natural Growth style as their primary focus can still end up having a very Natural Look style feel... on the flip side, players that primarily strive for Natural Look style can still do so while considering what would happen with Natural Growth. It really just comes down to player preference, and what their focus and primary source of enjoyment is. For me personally, I've just always loved the wonder of starting a region and not knowing where my first freeway would form... where my first skyscraper would sprout up. It just fascinates me, and the region takes on a life of its own in my opinion.

[Daeris 1,116]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:00 AM, TheMurderousCricket said:

It's really nice to see you back again @Daeris.

Oh thanks! It's been good to be back! I can't believe I let the pandemic and politics get me so low that I stopped playing for as long as I did.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

Well, the important thing is that you are well and alive as this was the main question mark in my mind regarding your absence.

[Daeris 1,116]

I wanted to posit an interesting question in relation to this topic. How does natural growth and urbanization tend to affect nearby cities? I wonder if anyone might have any interesting articles or resources on this. We know of course that things start out more rural and agricultural, and then eventually cities and new development swallows up the old farmlands, but I'm more curious about the effects on surrounding/nearby villages when their nextdoor neighbor villages quickly grow into towns and cities. I would presume this leads to more demand in agriculture in the rural areas surrounding the new town/city, but I'm curious on the larger dynamics of the urbanization process as a whole.

[Naomi57 2,985]

4 hours ago, Daeris said:

How does natural growth and urbanization tend to affect nearby cities? I wonder if anyone might have any interesting articles or resources on this. We know of course that things start out more rural and agricultural, and then eventually cities and new development swallows up the old farmlands, but I'm more curious about the effects on surrounding/nearby villages when their nextdoor neighbor villages quickly grow into towns and cities.

A very interesting question @Daeris, and I'm curious what resources people come up with.

From my own observations of sub-rural development surrounding my home city of Sydney, Australia over the last 50 years, growing urbanisation and rapid growth in a city leads surrounding areas to shift from generalised communities to specialisation.  e.g.

• Luxury crops in place of staple crops.
• Larger farms near the city rezoned into sub-rural smaller farms.
• Increased mining, refining (dirty industry), port development, and energy infrastructure clustered in strategic areas about 100km to 200km from the growing city.
• Quarries, sand mining, and plantation timber in close proximity to support construction projects with local materials.
• A major dam in a nearby pristine catchment area, with a protected catchment zone that is off-limits to the public but allows access for specialised personnel.
• Re-zoning of nearby ex-urban townships along highway and rail corridors, for low wealth commuters near the corridor, and high wealth estates where there are desirable landscape features.
• Expansion of pubs, roadhouses, and petrol stations (aka gas stations) at townships and/or isolated spots along the highways.
• Increasing specialisation of townships and rural areas, with some of them diversifying into farmstays, B&Bs, galleries, museums, and tourist spots.
• A few isolated towns well off the main highways being abandoned and becoming ruins or ghost towns, as residents move to locations with greater opportunities.  Very curiously, just a few of those ruins ended up being close to the highway, and I'm not sure why.

[Daeris 1,116]

Hiya @Naomi57

Wow! What a very well-thought post with great perspective. Thanks for sharing, that gives me a lot to think about.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

You are forgetting though about important variables which are soil fertility and terrain form.

In many cases, it is not as straightforward as in SimCity and you will find many cities around the world which actually don't have farms right next door just because they grew. Rome or Los Angeles are good examples of such cities. If you take a look in google maps, you will clearly see that there is no real agriculture going on around these huge agglomerations, either because the soil is bad or because the terrain is difficult.

My point is simply that sometimes resources and sustenance for big cities come from miles away and are not part of their immediate neighborhood. Heck, sometimes they are not even the part of the region in question.

While Masovian, for instance, has a decent figure of arable land, I can tell you with certainty that lots of Warsaw's foodstuffs are coming from Pomeranian and Mazury. Being flat and lodged between rivers, streams and lakes, these parts of Poland are more efficient in terms of agricultural production and this is where the om-nom comes from.

[Terring 6,476]

My cities and towns take place not in modern or historic times, but in the future. More specifically, in a solarpunk post-scarcity future like Star Trek and the Venus Project, where technology coexist with nature. My cities haven't been founded in the present or sometime the past and they just get evolved and updated into the future. Instead, they're going to be founded sometime in the next decades or even centuries, in times and a world much different than today in technology, society and mentality. Because of that, they're not based on any familiar norm and so they don't have to follow any modern or older rule and standard to be designed and constructed, so expect some strange and exotic for us designs and layouts which reflect the possible norms of the future, such as the establish of a money-free resource-based economy, the collapse of trade thanks to the Self Efficiency Movement and the nanoreplicators, the development of hydroponics and vertical farming, the usage of robots and 3D printing to build entire cities in just a few hours, the rise of automation and cybernetics, the Free Earth movement, the replacement of organic mayors with immortal AIs, the decline of the classic cities thanks to the arcologies, or even the death of the cities by the advancement of either (or both of) VR telecommuting or (and) flying cars. In the 22nd century there is just no reason to follow the norms of the 15th or the 20th century.

But in my cities there is only one mayor rule. Provide all of your Sims with the highest living standards possible with the lowest environmental and carbon footprint possible. On the one hand this sounds challenging, because you have to ensure that the natural environment isn't going to be disrupted too much and unnecessarily in order to satisfy your Sims (for instance, don't destroy lakes and hills to build a big airport, no matter how much you want it), and that all kind of infrastructures should be both the most efficient and the most environmental friendly, which in a money-based economy like capitalism is easier said that done. But on the other hand, this opens the door to so many possibilities and creative ideas, especially since we're talking about the future. Because of that, say hello to wind trees and vertical farms right in the middle of the city, small heliports next to commercial zones, organic designs of the road layout, clean industries right next to parks and apartment buildings, so many trees that can cover entire houses, central towers that houses all civic services, railroads instead of highways, green zones around the town, houses that can work as shops or workshops as well, bus stops in literally every corner, and plenty of subways stations even in the smallest villages. The results are something like this:

[Naomi57 2,985]

15 hours ago, Terring said:

Because of that, they're not based on any familiar norm and so they don't have to follow any modern or older rule and standard to be designed and constructed, so expect some strange and exotic for us designs and layouts

This reminds me very much of a planned city, where city planners have the luxury of starting from scratch.

In Australia, we had this exact situation, where Sydney and Melbourne politicians were arguing about which city should be the nation's capital.  The compromise was to build a new city as the nation's capital partway between these two major cities, which is how Canberra was born, with a provisional parliament house (upper right) opened in May 1927, and the new parliament house (centre) opened in May 1988.  Similar geopolitical compromises created planned capital cities in other nations, though the degree of artistry and design varies with each one.

The provisional parliament house in Canberra is now a public museum.  The city features other museums, war memorial, historic buildings, landmarks, and greenways.

In this sense, a futuristic and beautiful transit network can arise "organically" out of geopolitics, even without a post-scarcity society.  This city design approach is inspired by the garden city movement.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Canberra+ACT+2601/@-35.3082726,149.1202573,2394m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b164d69b05c9021:0x500ea6ea7695660!8m2!3d-35.2801903!4d149.1310038!5m1!1e4
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra#Urban_structure

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

Do keep in mind though that we are talking about the natural growth and development of the cities. This is why I simply cannot agree with this view:

9 hours ago, Terring said:

AIs, the decline of the classic cities thanks to the arcologies, or even the death of the cities by the advancement of either (or both of) VR telecommuting or (and) flying cars. In the 22nd century there is just no reason to follow the norms of the 15th or the 20th century.

I would tread really carefully from there because suggesting that one should let the cities die or use technologies they don't feel comfortable or safe with, is nothing less than a utopian fascicsm.

The problem is that one cannot issue some kind of an executive decree and decide what the cities should look like from point on. They are developing freely, according to their citizens needs and financial as well as educational potential.

Besides, building a city with a single goal in mind, makes it a planned city rather than a city with history, character and natural growth.

I suggest you check my CJ and especially the entries where the Altruists are featured. They are environment and wellfare-minded people like you, but did not really plan everything in advance. They continuously experiment with the city and environment design that would let their people live a happy and calm life.

To suggest that cities should just die overnight and give way to some brave new world is a cruel suggestion.  Have you guys seen "Humanity Bureau"...?

This is why I'm in line with the first part of your post in which you suggest, and I like the wording, that cities should "get updated into the future". This is indeed a natural development - we have a dream to be fulfilled, we might make numerous mistakes on the way, but it's cool - let's see how we can get there.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

While I'm generally not as pesimistic as @Scribosilyn (no offence meant ), he / she brings a good point when saying that no change happens overnight.

We invented industrial revolution, because we wanted to work easier and get more done. These were the necessities of the time and the natural needs for growth.

Today, many people (and rightly so! ) spit on the industry pioneers' graves, trying to figure out how can we cool our cities down, feeling that every summer is like entering a cooking oven. These are the necessities of the time and the natural needs for the future.

So the bottom line is that natural development means trying out different solutions. Not only the good ones. In fact, the shortsightedness (but the wisdom as well) of past generations is too a natural cycle of life. Just like fixing the mistakes of said past generations is.

[Naomi57 2,985]

I think we might have wandered off-topic, from natural growth to crystal ball, but here's my take on a post-scarcity society.

A post-scarcity society is radically different from the society we live in now, and that radical change implies a force that generates that change.  While technology is a primary enabler, I don't think the transformation of society will come from technology.  I think it will come from disaster.

It doesn't require a cataclysm.  Multiple combined disasters at sufficient scale and long time frame are quite sufficient to reshape societies.

[Terring 6,476]

13 hours ago, Naomi57 said:

This reminds me very much of a planned city, where city planners have the luxury of starting from scratch.

Planned cities might sound like the opposite of natural development and the ideal approach for building new cities, since it allows you to organize your society and minimize any problems they would arise right at the very beginning of your project. Why patching a city to solve a problem when you can prevent it? There is a catch, though. You need to have in mind that no matter how well organized is your city, you might still need to expand, adjust and update it according to future needs, so some natural development will still be necessary. This should not work as a justification to build that big airport in sensitive ecosystems, though. So you need to resort in innovative and creative results to cover your Sims' need without damaging the environment.

Building new expansions as garden cities could help, thus having enough room for any future project. This is one of the reasons why I let green zones untouched around my cities, not only to let Nature breath but also in case I need a new hospital or power plant or something. Another idea is to re-use and dispose brownfield sites (previously developed land that is not currently in use), such as turning an old factory into a vintage-looking hotel. Of course this requires advanced and specialized appraisal analysis techniques. You really don't want to expose your Sims in land contaminated by toxic waste.

But there is an even more radical and epic solution, which is the application of modular constructions. All of our structures, our homes and highways, are built to withstand the test of time, but this focus on permanence is also a serious problem maker. In a dynamic and ever-changing world, permanent structures often end up generating massive amounts of waste, whether through demolition or just abandonment. This problem can be solved by modular construction, a building technique that dates back to the 1800s. The modular construction process involves transporting multiple prefabricated buildings, which are assembled on-site like Lego bricks to form a bigger and complete structure. Because of this, modular buildings can be upgraded, reassembled into new formations, or even disassembled and transported elsewhere for reuse. If this strategy prevail, I predict that sometime in 21st or 22nd century, our buildings, roads and even entire cities will be able to constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in only a matter of days, like playing SimCity in real life. This could be the ultimate triumph of natural development.

12 hours ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

I would tread really carefully from there because suggesting that one should let the cities die or use technologies they don't feel comfortable or safe with, is nothing less than a utopian fascicsm.

This is not a fascist strategy but a possible future scenario. Let me explain it better. Sir Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that there is a sort of an inverse relationship between communication and transportation. This means that the more advanced one becomes, the less you need the other. If communication develops virtual reality to the point where businesses can conduct meetings with members who physically are located all over the globe and you can't tell the difference, and even to the point where you can actually touch and interact with their avatars/holograms, why traveling physically to those meetings? Already many corporations are experimenting with telecommuting, especially thanks to the pandemic. Heck, I've had been doing my previous job of translating and subtitle adding in TV shows in my comfy house, and that's before pandemic and the nowadays rice of teleworking. By the same token, if transportation develops ultra-fast trains or flying cars (I could include teleportation but let's not stretch it that much) that can fly you from Beijing to New York in just a few hours or even minutes, who needs teleconferences?

Communication and transportation are two different techniques dealing with the same problem. If either technology becomes advanced enough, the cities of the future will look very different than what we can imagine. Maybe they'll be scattered around and form small communities instead of big cities, or even a global network of arcologies. But if both technologies becomes advanced enough, the idea of cities as we know it today will die. Decentralization will destroy the need of big cities and come to the point that all people will live like hermits, free to set up their houses anywhere they want, but still they'll be not totally seclusive thanks to communication and transportation. If this happens, the entire planet will be our house as I imagined it back in 2014.

Keep in mind that this is only a possible scenario, not something that we can take it for granted. In the future, all bets are off. History is full of plot twists and the future will not be any different. An idea that today sounds disturbing may become a reality into the future.

11 hours ago, Scribosilyn said:

I really like this vision of the future world @Terring, but I don't think it's realistic but rather utopian, I don't know how you situate your point of view at this level.

Thank you very much

I couldn't say it's "utopian". Utopia means total perfection and no need for further improvements, which is like trying to build the best city possible that will always stay like that forever. That's impossible. Even the most awesome city will require improvements and upgrades to stay awesome. Utopia means perfection and there's not such a thing. The right word would be "eutopia", which mean something both better and possible. We're not talking about perfection, but an endless progress of improvements and changes for the best.

To avoid derailing the topic further more, I'll answer to your questions and thoughts as briefly as I can. I fully agree that 21st century will be a really bumpy road. We're just in the beginning and we're already suffering from climate crises, wars, recessions and the rise of fascism and pseudoscience (coincidence?). But on the other hand, more and more people are questioning the establishment and making their conscious steps forward, either by raising their voices and forcing governments to protect mankind and our planet, or by innovations that can overturn anything we've taken from granted. As an environmental engineer, I can ensure you there are TONS of awesome solutions and ideas that can turn the tables, such as solar panels that can be printed like newspapers, small and recyclable wind turbines, and roads that recharges electric vehicles while they drive over it... but I'll need to make a new topic for that . This is one of the reasons that makes me not lost hope for the future. The other is this:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
- Mario Savio, 1964

And more and more people (especially young people) have had enough with this situation.

11 hours ago, Scribosilyn said:

Currently, the 21st century is going to be difficult to get through if we don't change our consumption habits and the way we operate.

Exactly! And enough said

4 hours ago, Naomi57 said:

Multiple combined disasters at sufficient scale and long time frame are quite sufficient to reshape societies.

The pandemic have bring many changes in our society, so you have a point. However in history of mankind we'll see that not only disasters, but also new discoveries and technologies can reshape societies, like the Industrial Revolution. Everything can change society.

4 hours ago, Naomi57 said:

I think we might have wandered off-topic

My fault, my bad. Sorry for that

[Daeris 1,116]

I think the contributions from everyone are great and give a lot to think about. I think we can define the parameters of our own growth within the game as we wish of course. I'm really impressed @Terring has done this with their solarpunk cities. All the comments here really give a lot to think about, and I'm really fascinated by the modular buildings concept. I think I'm going to model my growth more like a rampant industrial revolution that then needs to be scaled back to protect the environment.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

As the on-off rail engineer who attempts to put our thoughts back on track... 

...in this topic, the natural growth mindset coming from above explorations is fairly clear and easy to identify.

Early on, cities develop mostly as resource-collection outposts. A process which is followed by the estabilishment of homes for the population.

Then, in many cases, the resources deplete and the character of industrial / collection zones changes.

Seems obvious, does it? The interesting thing is what happens to these no longer useful extraction zones. In many cases they become revitalized and turn into entertainment zones, museums and other types of objects (which often are indeed cleaner as a result) but does it always go down this way?

[younghappy 308]

Loving the discussions folks, and seeing some of these ideas emerging in cityjournals too. I particularly like the aspect of using polls to make decisions, as seen in CJs by  @TheMurderousCricket and @Daeris most recently. It gave me the idea of somehow introducing an 'Events Machine' for SC4, after all "Events, dear boy, events" is the greatest challenge for a statesman, according to PM Harold Macmillan.  The core game is limited to disasters, fires, protests and that sort of thing.  Most strategy games and also board games have a better grip on this sort of thing ('Stronghold' has Plagues, wolves, bandits, weddings, fairs, droughts, wheat disease e.g.) which all interfere with your economy and popularity.   

Where am I going with this and how does this relate to a natural growth playstyle?  Events steer the course of history and how a settlement might develop just as much as the shape of the terrain.  Imagine a natural growth mayor rolling a virtual die, which provides an event and a consequence (an action the mayor must take)

*rolls die* Event:  Wild fire,  Action:  Mayor must burn all properties adjacent to forests

*rolls die* Event:  Drought,  Action:  Decrease water budget by 40% for 5 years

*rolls die* Event: Religious revival:  Build +1 religious building in each village

 

I'm not sure that any such 'Event Randomiser' could be built into the game, so it would have to be an external feature.  It'd be cool if the community would crowdsource the events and actions into a big list, and perhaps some of these events could be grouped into different eras so that they are relevant to whatever stage in history the city is in.

Feel free to roll with the concept, I just provided a rough example of how it might look.  The downside is that the implementation would feel quite artificial/contrived, but I trust that the creative minds of Simtropolis could come up with interesting events & actions that would throw some curveballs into the typical flow of decision making.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

I like this concept @younghappy, because it involves something that nobody has ever mentioned in this thread - how random events shape the history of cities.

I remember Stronghold and the random events there! While somewhat simple, they, indeed, at least force the player to take some form of a two-factor (shall I say) action. You don't only have to deal with the immediate consequences of a given situation, but you also have to make sure that your reputation stays high enough because otherwise the castle simply depopulates.

So to build a natural city in SC4 is to take these various random-history mechanics into account when building.

Disasters are on one of the spectrums. But then there are also other mechanisms.

Suppose there was an influential guild in one part of the city which remained wealthy enough to shape the city in the 16th century. This part of town will surely look a lot different from other parts which belonged to the generał population.

Then, in the 19th century and after The July Flood, the City Council forbade to construct any buildings within 2 km from the river banks. A ban which has been lifted only in 1975. Just in case you wonder why there are such beautiful riperian forests on our waterfront.

So randomness, history and causality are very powerful tools to get the job right and attain a natural look of a city or two. I am glad you pointed that out. 

[younghappy 308]

Of course, the fascinating thing is that each mayor will have their own particular set of cultures and politics at play in their city journals, like the guilds you mentioned.  So rather than the 'Events Machine' being this rigid, prescriptive sort of thing, it could just be used as a prompt for mayors to react in a way that would make sense for the geography, culture and politics of their region.

Moving even further away from the idea of a standalone randomising feature, instead, a limited number of realistic events could be presented in a CJ poll occasionally and the 'The Revered Spirits of the St'ropoli Dimension' could decide which event is going to happen in the region next.  I still think it would be cool if the community were to collate all of these events though, as I am sure there would be many that I would not think of by myself.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

5 hours ago, younghappy said:

Of course, the fascinating thing is that each mayor will have their own particular set of cultures and politics at play in their city journals, like the guilds you mentioned. 

This is indeed an important factor in city building games. For me personally, such idea is almost delicious...  I love thought experiments and frequently like to explore just how far an imagination can take me or other people.

Your idea has been implemented in Tropico 4: Modern Times, where, alongside the regular gameplay, player was given a timeline of historical events which affected the economy and International relations depending on the year. Unfortunately, given the fact that full year lasted just about 8 minutes in that game (something I still try to mod) it wasn't really possible to enjoy this system.

6 hours ago, younghappy said:

So rather than the 'Events Machine' being this rigid, prescriptive sort of thing, it could just be used as a prompt for mayors to react in a way that would make sense for the geography, culture and politics of their region.

Good idea! It could just be a simple prompt in the form of a subtitle.  The players could then react to it and reflect the ongoing developments in their buliding styles according to the prompt or simply acknowledge the prompt but take no action - just a suggestion for some random span of time. No obligation to do anything.

6 hours ago, younghappy said:

Moving even further away from the idea of a standalone randomising feature, instead, a limited number of realistic events could be presented in a CJ poll occasionally and the 'The Revered Spirits of the St'ropoli Dimension' could decide which event is going to happen in the region next. 

As far as the spiritual and religious triggers for development go, only recently have I been reminded about the so-called "Shimmering Path".

It is a network of thirty-three magnificent temples arranged as a pilgrimage route and built by a religious clan featured in the Homeworld game series.

In many cases groups of spiritual people like these can also influence how cities and cultural landmarks are shaped. So spirituality may be just as strong an urban force as economy, disasters and social relations are.

[Daeris 1,116]

Sorry all I'm battling covid atm but plan to catchup here soon. Looks like a fantastic idea.

[Terring 6,476]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:48 PM, Scribosilyn said:

I'm not going to spread my words any further, but if you want to open a topic to talk about this, I'd be happy to chat with you!

New topic, done

The idea of random events is indeed awesome. With so many things that could happen during a town's past, such as earthquakes and revolutions, it can lead to an even greater variety of unique cities and mindsets. I think I can help in this project if you want

[Daeris 1,116]

Hey everyone I'm starting to feel a little better finally. Man, covid really sucks... that was my first time getting it. Oof.

Anyways, I'm very curious to see where this idea goes. It's definitely part of what I was wanting to go for with having interactive poll questions on my CJ.... I want other players to help throw random guidance/events at me, as if they are settlers living in my region for example. I think @younghappy had an excellent idea that expands on that even further, and I'd love to consider incorporating it further into my CJ. I think what I would probably personally struggle with is deciding what type of random events to include.

[Daeris 1,116]

Hello everyone, I hope you've been well.

I'm back (at least for the moment), and was thinking of posting another update in my natural growth city journal. I'm moving at a snail's pace. I had a post all ready to go then lost it somehow, and I was too bummed for awhile to retype it all out. I'm hoping I can find the energy to make an update soon.

Anyways I had a question for all of you super knowledgeable types. How quickly does a population grow, over history? I've done some googling and having really found anything concrete. I'm curious to know how long it might take say a population of 1000 to become 5000 for example, and how long for that 5000 to become 10000, and so on and so on. I'm also wondering what advancements may have lead to the greatest population spurts over time. Of the top of my head I would imagine:

• Agricultural advancements
  • Farming/pesticides
  • Hunting/weapons for hunting
  • Trading for food?/meeting with other civs?
  • Retail locations with food?
• Water traversal and waste removal advancements
  • Aqueducts and/or water purifiers, water towers
  • Sewers
• Medical advancements
  • Life expectancy up
  • Birth rate success up
• Religion?
  • Maybe a society that almost idolizes being fruitful?
• Collective strife?
  • Returning from war baby boom? Or post financial recession baby boom?

 

What are some other things that might lead to increase population growth I'm overlooking?

Anyone have any good resources on how to calculate a realistic timeline for how long it would take a few thousand people to get up to say 1 million people?

 

Thanks.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

10 hours ago, Daeris said:

Anyone have any good resources on how to calculate a realistic timeline for how long it would take a few thousand people to get up to say 1 million people?

I believe you may simply want to visit official, national statistical resources to discover that. These institutions should have both the current population as well as historical data that will show you how fast populations develop. Seriously, this is the most accurate resource that you could study.

In the macro scale, you may even browse data regarding the total number of humans on the planet. Then, do some maths, determine the percentages and adjust them to lower numbers.

10 hours ago, Daeris said:

Water traversal and waste removal advancements

• Aqueducts and/or water purifiers, water towers
• Sewers

 

Sort of, I guess?

I remember that when playing Civ 2, aqueduct and sewer system were necessary to advance city population beyond certain thresholds.

10 hours ago, Daeris said:

Medical advancements

• Life expectancy up
• Birth rate success up

 

The most important feature I would say. The longer people live, the more of them stay alive at the same time. The rate of stillbirths is reduced as well which means that natural growth is higher.

10 hours ago, Daeris said:

Religion?

• Maybe a society that almost idolizes being fruitful?

 

This may also be a double-edged sword because some religious groups forbid their followers to intermarry with outsiders.

[Golan0 279]

12 hours ago, Daeris said:

What are some other things that might lead to increase population growth I'm overlooking?

There is no closed list covering all factors influencing natural growth. 
I can suggest a few additional items for your list:

• Landscape and climate - population in flat floodplains in temperate region will grow faster and to higher level than in tundra or desert
• Technological advancement - mechanization of agriculture and fertilizers create surplus food production, medical advancement reduce death rates
• Political - capital regions of large nations, ports, etc. increase local population, beyond local carrying capacity
• Immigration/emigration - over long time it can seriously affect local population growth,

You also have to remember about negative factors:

• Industrialization - mechanized farmer do not need 8 children to support its family farm
• Wealth - Fertility rater goes down when society becomes wealthier
• Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Plague, Death

[TheMurderousCricket 5,085]

3 hours ago, Golan0 said:

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Plague, Death

And Misinformation.