poll SC4 Building Styles Community Vote

[Ulisse Wolf 4,408]

SC4 Community Building Styles Vote

After a long discussion we have finally reached the final stage where the community will vote on the available proposals for building styles that will end up within the mod Allow More Building Styles - DLL Plugin.

Below are the two proposals available

Option A - Maxis Logic  (@Jasoncw's proposal)

0x00002010 - Chicago 1895 (Chicago 1890) - American styles of the period. Chicago School, Beaux Arts, Richardsonian Romanesque, etc.

0x00002011 - New York 1935 (New York 1940) - American styles of the period. Art Deco, Craftsman, revival styles such as Neo-Gothic, Neoclassical, etc.

0x00002012 - Houston 1995 (Houston 1990) - Postmodernism (including "modernism as a surface aesthetic").

0x00002013 - Frankfurt 2005 (Euro Contemporary) - Modern architecture of the period. Previous Euro tileset minus what was split into others. 

0x00002014 - Rome 1755 - Pre-industrial European-based styles. Baroque, Renaissance, etc.

0x00002015 - Paris 1895 - Haussmann Paris. Second Empire, etc.

0x00002016 - Berlin 1915 - All European-based eclectic styles.

0x00002017 - Los Angeles 1965 - US-centric modern architecture. Midcentury Modern, New Formalism, etc.

0x00002018 - Rotterdam 1975 - European counterpart to LA 1965. Structuralism, high-tech, megastructures, communist, etc.

0x00002019 - Taipei 2005 - Contemporary building styles and types unique to East Asia.

0x0000201A - Sao Paulo 2005 - Contemporary building styles and types unique to Latin America.

0x0000201B - Copenhagen 2025 - Current modern architecture.

0x0000201C - Other - Catchall for all of the rare regional or historical styles. Default style for niche things which don't belong anywhere else but need a tileset assigned.

0x0000201D - Futuristic - Fictional styles of the far future.

-/-/-

Option B - Hybrid Architecture & Geography  (@Ulisse Wolf's proposal)

0x00002010 - Commercial & Neoclassical (Chicago 1890) - From classic wooden buildings to early brick skyscrapers inspired by Chicago's first school.

0x00002011 - Art Deco (New York 1940) - All the buildings and styles of architecture that were inspired by the Art Deco style with luxurious and glitzy forms.

0x00002012 - Post Modernism (Houston 1990) - All the buildings and styles of architecture that developed from the end of World War II to the beginning of the Third Millennium (2000).

0x00002013 - European Contemporary - All the buildings and styles of architecture respecting the current contemporary European style.

0x00002014 - Mediterranean - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have shaped the Mediterranean basin.

0x00002015 - West Europe All All the European buildings and styles of architecture styles before World War II.

0x00002016 - Eastern Europe All buildings and styles of architecture that characterized Eastern Europe including the Soviet style.

0x00002017 - East Asia & Southeast Asia - All the buildings and styles of architecture that characterized East Asia and Southeast Asia before World War II.

0x00002018 - East Asia Contemporary - All the buildings and styles of architecture that characterized East Asia and Southeast Asia after World War II.

0x00002019 - American Contemporary - All the buildings and styles of architecture respecting the current contemporary American style.

0x0000201A - Africa & Middle East - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized Africa and the Middle East.

0x0000201B - Latin American and Caribbean - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized Latin American and Caribbean.

0x0000201C - North Europe - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized North Europe.

0x0000201D - Central Europe - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized Central Europe.

0x0000201E - Hong Kong Contemporary All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized Modern Hong Kong and Modern China.

0x0000201F - Futuristic - All the buildings and styles of architecture that have characterized Future.

DEADLINE

Voting will be available until March 2 at 11:59 p.m. CET.

After that time, voting will no longer be available.

  Edited March 2, 2025 by CorinaMarie  
Removed lock date and time.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,049]

Cool idea. Although I am well into redistributing my downloads into my own classes, I am still eager to see what the results of the poll will be. I would like to have some BATs that would fit under the umbrella of a single building style across many geographically distinct regions.  

Like post-modernism or art deco. The examples of which can be found all over the globe, making 0x2011 and 0x2012 a building slot that is as appropriate for an American town as it is for a European one. This should be a nice inspiration.

[Gunzerino 21]

I vote for option B because is more descriptive. 

[Flann 1,709]

2 hours ago, Gunzerino said:

I vote for option B because is more descriptive. 

Maybe more descriptive, but keep in mind that it is the name that we will see, and for me the names in A are decidedly more obvious.  City plus era is immediately evocative, whereas the styles presented in Option B are less clear and an odd mix of regions and architecture styles.  For example, I find the four different European styles (west, east, north, central) to be excessive and unclear, but I think that Paris 1895, Berlin 1915, Rotterdam 1975, etc. more readily provide a sense of place that I can imagine in my head.

[EffTheGrid 3,668]

2 hours ago, Flann said:

Maybe more descriptive, but keep in mind that it is the name that we will see, and for me the names in A are decidedly more obvious.  City plus era is immediately evocative, whereas the styles presented in Option B are less clear and an odd mix of regions and architecture styles.  For example, I find the four different European styles (west, east, north, central) to be excessive and unclear, but I think that Paris 1895, Berlin 1915, Rotterdam 1975, etc. more readily provide a sense of place that I can imagine in my head.

^ yeah!

I agree - option A is more clear to me - and it fits into the framework we're already using.

[TogaMasterJohn 705]

9 hours ago, Flann said:

Maybe more descriptive, but keep in mind that it is the name that we will see, and for me the names in A are decidedly more obvious.  City plus era is immediately evocative, whereas the styles presented in Option B are less clear and an odd mix of regions and architecture styles.  For example, I find the four different European styles (west, east, north, central) to be excessive and unclear, but I think that Paris 1895, Berlin 1915, Rotterdam 1975, etc. more readily provide a sense of place that I can imagine in my head.

7 hours ago, EffTheGrid said:

I agree - option A is more clear to me - and it fits into the framework we're already using.

Indeed. Option A looks and feels more like what Maxis could have shipped in a later expansion pack. And while I do like and appreciate the general idea of Option B, Option A fits in more.

[kergelen 727]

In my opinion, option B represents more the whole spectrum of SimCity styles and what the community has created over the years. It includes different European and USA styles but also styles that can include Japanese (very used by some members of the community), Soviet, Caribbean, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern.

On the other hand, option A seems too European-USA centered and has only 2 options outside Europe and the USA (Taipei and Sao Paulo). For me, this reduces possibilities in the game. On the other hand, I prefer to define styles according to regions rather than specific cities (Paris, New York or Hong Kong may have very unique styles, but others are styles that can be found in many other cities). And for me SC4 is more than cities, is its regions also.

Anyway, option A or B will be a great improvement.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

11 hours ago, kergelen said:

In my opinion, option B represents more the whole spectrum of SimCity styles and what the community has created over the years. It includes different European and USA styles but also styles that can include Japanese (very used by some members of the community), Soviet, Caribbean, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern.

On the other hand, option A seems too European-USA centered and has only 2 options outside Europe and the USA (Taipei and Sao Paulo). For me, this reduces possibilities in the game. On the other hand, I prefer to define styles according to regions rather than specific cities (Paris, New York or Hong Kong may have very unique styles, but others are styles that can be found in many other cities). And for me SC4 is more than cities, is its regions also.

Anyway, option A or B will be a great improvement.

Option A is style based, and covers those styles wherever they are across the planet. The tileset names use cities and dates because while most people don't know the names of 100+ architecture styles, they do know cities and time periods. So the Bank of China Building in Hong Kong goes into the New York 1935 tileset, because it's an art deco building. Right next door is the HSBC Building which goes into the Rotterdam 1975 tileset because it's a high tech building. Central Plaza goes into the Houston 1995 tileset because it's postmodern. The Murray Building goes into LA 1965 because it is new formalist.

Taipei 2005 and Sao Paulo 2005 are the exceptions, because they're based on region and not on style (or rather, they are based on regional styles, and not necessarily their location). They are for buildings that are so distinctive to those regions that they shouldn't be in the other tilesets. So a pencil apartment tower in Hong Kong, or something like Kowloon Walled City would go into Taipei 2005. This isn't a perfect system because everywhere in the world has buildings that are very distinctive to their location, and every player of the game is going to have a different idea of what kinds of distinctive buildings are unacceptable in their cities. But this is the best solution I could think of for the problem (the function of tilesets is to help players control what buildings grow at the same time).

The Commercial Bank of Ethiopia would go into Copenhagen 2025. Ethiopia also has a lot of distinct regional architecture, and it would go into Other, because there aren't enough BATs to justify an entire tileset, and it's unlikely that players would also have other extremely rare BAT styles (also put into the Other tileset) at the same time. And again this isn't perfect. But it's niche enough of a situation that if it doesn't provide enough control for the player, they should create their own personal tilesets, which this mod allows.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

I think the main choice for players is deciding what their main goal is for the tilesets.

For example, you are making a city and you imagine it being a city in Eastern Europe.

Option A - Style Based

Advantage: You can choose which styles grow at different times, and you can select and unselect tilesets based on your own vision for the history and character of your Eastern European city. You also have more buildings/variety in each tileset, because buildings of the same style are being pooled together, rather than divided based on regional variation.

Disadvantage: The styles you want will grow, but regional variants of those styles will leak in. For example, German and Swedish historical buildings would grow with your Eastern European historical buildings because they're all in the "Berlin 1915" tileset.

Option B - Region Based

Advantage: It is guaranteed that only buildings appropriate for Eastern Europe will grow.

Disadvantage: You have very little control beyond that. The "Eastern Europe" tileset contains both historic and contemporary buildings (everything from the dawn of man to today. Baroque, commie blocks, renaissance, brutalist, postmodern. everything) and it will all grow at the same time. If you turn off the "Eastern Europe" tileset and turn on "Postmodernism" and/or "European Contemporary" then the postwar Eastern European buildings will grow again, but so will all the postwar buildings which don't belong in Eastern Europe, which defeats the purpose of basing tilesets on region in the first place. There's no way with Option B to only grow historic Eastern European buildings.

 

Overall, if you're a person who cares a lot about the fine details of buildings, (like regional variants, signage language, plant species, retail brands, car models, etc.) fitting in with your region but you don't care about what grows other than that, then pick Option B. If you're a person who cares about having a lot of control over what grows when (for example, having different buildings grow when you're working on your historic CBD vs when you're working on your new suburbs), but you don't mind that the buildings are actually from all over the world, then pick Option A.

[CorinaMarie 29,593]

Here's what I still don't understand: Why can't Option A use 0x2010 thru 0x201F and Option B 0x2020 thru 0x202F? Then each building gets one of each in its exemplar as per the separate categories it fits in.

Now the player controls which master set (Option A or Option B) to use by which text-based INI file they have in Plugins. There's no conflict this way and everyone can be happy and have their choice win.

Since I don't know architecture well enough to make a good example, let's say we have the Jetson's home apartment building. It gets assigned both 0x201D Futuristic and 0x202F Futuristic. Now it won't matter which Option peeps have. They can each get it to grow by enabling the appropriate tileset in the scheme they are using.

The Empire State Building would be 0x201x in Option A and 0x202y in Option B. (Just I don't know what the x and y are in this case, but y'all will.)

[Ulisse Wolf 4,408]

1 hour ago, CorinaMarie said:

Here's what I still don't understand: Why can't Option A use 0x2010 thru 0x201F and Option B 0x2020 thru 0x202F? Then each building gets one of each in its exemplar as per the separate categories it fits in.

Now the player controls which master set (Option A or Option B) to use by which text-based INI file they have in Plugins. There's no conflict this way and everyone can be happy and have their choice win.

Since I don't know architecture well enough to make a good example, let's say we have the Jetson's home apartment building. It gets assigned both 0x201D Futuristic and 0x202F Futuristic. Now it won't matter which Option peeps have. They can each get it to grow by enabling the appropriate tileset in the scheme they are using.

The Empire State Building would be 0x201x in Option A and 0x202y in Option B. (Just I don't know what the x and y are in this case, but y'all will.)

I'm thinking about this thing if the vote goes to a tie indicating that the community is too divided to achieve a common community style

 

[CorinaMarie 29,593]

1 minute ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

I'm thinking about this thing if the vote goes to a tie indicating that the community is too divided to achieve a common community style

Yeah. CB and I've been watching the totals and we're thinking if one side or the other doesn't get two-thirds or more it's going to need a Plan B.

[Andreas Roth 607]

I've been looking at the poll results as well, and apparently, it's not easy to decide which proposal works better. On the one hand, naming the new styles in the same manner as Maxis did (option A) is probably easier to remember and more "catchy", but I understand the voices that say this might be too restricted and centered on European and North American architecture. Looking at the content of the STEX, I'd say that most of the files actually are from these regions, though, but then again, I've been away for way too long, so this might have changed over the time.

What I still don't understand is why we must restrict the selection to 16 styles, and why the Maxis ones are not allowed to be part of this set. And furthermore, I don't understand why we're leaving out the IDs 0x00002004 to 0x0000200F. Wouldn't it be more logical if we simply expand the existing Maxis styles with more options, and if 12 additional styles are not enough, create even more? Then we could cover all geographic regions in more detail, if that works better for the players.

Eventually, there might be 20 building styles plus the 4 Maxis ones, which still leaves enough room for a few custom styles if someone really want to max out the number in the UI that has been created so far (and that one could be adapted easily, if necessary). Personally, I prefer naming the tilesets after iconic cities, but a region-based name scheme could be just another set of LTEXT files, so everyone could choose what they prefer after all.

[Kel9509 1,357]

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

The Empire State Building would be 0x201x in Option A and 0x202y in Option B. (Just I don't know what the x and y are in this case, but y'all will.)

Honestly, I'm surprised that no one else really picked up on this but as far as I can tell, these two choices are not really that different. Now, I'm no architect or designer, so this is merely my opinion as a novice, but are these styles really different?:

Chicago 1895 = Commercial & Neoclassical
New York 1935 = Art Deco
Houston 1995 = Post Modernism
Frankfurt 2005 = European Contemporary
Rome 1775 = Mediterranean
Paris 1895 = West Europe
Berlin 1915 = Central Europe and/or North Europe.
Los Angeles 1965 = American Contemporary
Rotterdam 1975 = North Europe or Eastern Europe
Taipei 2005 = East Asia Contemporary
Sao Paulo 2005 = Latin America and Caribbean
Copenhagen 2025 = ???  Also European Contemporary
And then there's the Futuristic.  

If you view it this way, this poll seems less like some major choice to me, and more like a poll on which naming style you like.  I think both choices cover the major architectural styles for the game.

If you align the names like I did, and also align the exemplar IDs so they match equivalent styles (so for example, Taipei 2005 is 0x00002019 and East Asia Contemporary is 0x00002018, but they should both share the same exemplar ID because they're basically covering the same ground), then this is really a poll over building naming convention.  And a person doesn't even need to accept the results of this poll, so long as the exemplar ID matches, because the only thing that matters is that ID and if someone wants to call their East Asia Contemporary building set Taipei 2005 in their BuildingStyles.ini file, that won't be an issue at all.

[Flann 1,709]

44 minutes ago, Andreas Roth said:

why the Maxis ones are not allowed to be part of this set

I think the gist of it is that we had 20 years of only having 4 tilesets, so if we don't replace them completely, they'll continue to be a hodge-podge of different styles.  See the below posts for a better explanation:
 

 

 

[Null 45 3,026]

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

Why can't Option A use 0x2010 thru 0x201F and Option B 0x2020 thru 0x202F?

I agree. Or go back to the 12 community styles in 0x2000 thru 0x200F, and keep some range after that reserved for further community styles. Both lists were originally designed for the 0x2000 thru 0x200F range, the first 4 styles in both lists are just renamed versions of the Maxis styles.

1 hour ago, Andreas Roth said:

And furthermore, I don't understand why we're leaving out the IDs 0x00002004 to 0x0000200F.

The reason I originally proposed that was due to an assumption I made about the UI layout. I was assuming that the 12 community community styles would be using a single column not split into two like the Maxis ones. In a single column layout with 12 community styles the bottom 2 check boxes would be unused, and I thought that looked odd to have that blank space. Effectively the 32 style UI is 2 rows of 18 check boxes, with the first 2 check boxes in each row being used for the Maxis styles.

1 hour ago, Andreas Roth said:

why the Maxis ones are not allowed to be part of this set.

13 minutes ago, Flann said:

I think the gist of it is that we had 20 years of only having 4 tilesets, so if we don't replace them completely, they'll continue to be a hodge-podge of different styles.

That part of my proposal was for compatibility with existing content, the 4 Maxis styles must always have an equivalent present for content that hasn't been updated to the new styles system.

[CorinaMarie 29,593]

Another thing which might be skewing our ideas is many peeps believe a new tileset must have enough buildings across all growth stages to rival the quantity Maxis put in the original sets. And that'll be sweet if they do. Some might already have enough to do that when properly grouped. Others might be a little shy but the Batters and Lotters might fill in those holes.

I believe there are other categories worthy of a tileset number, but which simply are not complete for all stages. Nor do they need to be. Smalltown, USA would be an excellent set for my play style. It will get it's own number on my comp in addition to whatever community grouping is appropriate. We really can have our cake and eat it too.

There are other Batters who've created only skyscrapers and maybe those would do well as their own set. Does it matter if they cross a dozen different architectural styles? If they could all realistically be in the same city as it grew over a century or more then some peeps might like the option to grow them that way. We simply put them in some higher tileset number for grouping, but also have each individual TS number that fits the community lists.

Remember: The UI can actually be a lot larger than the last accepted version. I did a demo of one with a 100+ slots.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,408]

50 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

I agree. Or go back to the 12 community styles in 0x2000 thru 0x200F, and keep some range after that reserved for further community styles. Both lists were originally designed for the 0x2000 thru 0x200F range, the first 4 styles in both lists are just renamed versions of the Maxis styles.

At this point we return with the original range (0x2000 - 0x200F) and modify the ui to have these 16 styles grouped in one UI space allowing option A and B to coexist.

Ideally, the solution that can satisfy both parties would be this (Based @Kel9509 idea)

Chicago 1895 = Commercial & Neoclassical
New York 1925 = Art Deco
Houston 1995 = Post Modernism
Frankfurt 2005 = European Contemporary
Rome 1655 = Mediterranean
Paris 1895 = West Europe
Moscow 1975 = Eastern Europe
Berlin 1915 = Central Europe
Stockholm 1775 = North Europe
Sao Paulo 1985 = Latin American and Caribbean
Abu Dhabi 2025 = Africa & Middle East
Osaka 1575 = East Asia & Southeast Asia
Tokyo 1995 = East Asia Contemporary
Hong Kong 2015 = Hong Kong Contemporary
Los Angeles 1965 = American Contemporary
Night City 2075 = Futurism

This allows the two options to perform the same functions allowing modders to not have to go crazy with the compatibility of the two options. Of course, the modder can also request a public range and create styles of his own when he feels that the buildings are not compatible with the community styles

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Yeah, it doesn't seem like there's a consensus either way. I understand that a deadline was needed in order to make things progress, since the previous discussion had fizzled out. But my preference for important things like this is always to keep working on it, and maybe this time around with more attention there will be a more robust discussion.

If people can pick alternate versions of the modd in order to use one proposal or the other independently of each other, that would be one solution. I would still support improving both proposals as much as possible though.

 

For the UI, while making the UI one way (a certain size or layout) might create space for a certain number of tilesets, and give an idea of how many tilesets there should be, I think the final UI should be adjusted to fit with the tilesets, and not the tilesets made to fit the UI.

Also, if it's possible, ideally (for a style based system) there would be an image with buildings next to the community tilesets, like there is for the Maxis tilesets. Just having some images of representative buildings would help players a lot. Presumably, being the year 2025, we can assume we have 1080 pixels of safe space to work with.

[Kel9509 1,357]

36 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

Also, if it's possible, ideally (for a style based system) there would be an image with buildings next to the community tilesets, like there is for the Maxis tilesets. Just having some images of representative buildings would help players a lot. Presumably, being the year 2025, we can assume we have 1080 pixels of safe space to work with.

I was hopeful that descriptive tooltips would assist people.  Images will be difficult to incorporate in a new UI, and obviously since there's a whole range of individual custom tileset IDs as well, I'm doubtful a UI could be designed that would incorporate images for the community styles but none, or alternatively, spaces for custom images, for the custom tilesets.

36 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

I would still support improving both proposals as much as possible though.

I really think that many of these style names are functionally the same thing.  So people can use dates like Paris 1895, or "West Europe" however they want in their BuildingStyles.INI file.  The name doesn't really matter.  It's the ID that matters, what it's supposed to be getting at.  And like I said, there was a lot of overlap.  So maybe instead of campaigning over a name, the issue is, do we have the right style list?

I'm certain that even after we do this, there will be a BATter or a LOTter who will upload a new building, and put it into a style that some will probably object to.  It's easy enough to fix with a little effort, and perhaps very easy step-by-step tutorials with images on how to alter building style exemplars should be provided.  My point is, don't think that this vote will solve all problems.  But also, this vote isn't the end of all things either.

[Null 45 3,026]

19 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

Remember: The UI can actually be a lot larger than the last accepted version. I did a demo of one with a 100+ slots.

Here is that post:

That UI had 128 custom styles, grouped into 4 rows of 32 under the 4 Maxis styles. It was created before I added support for the lot subdivision controls, but possibly could be updated for that. I am not convinced that a ton of people would need 128 style options, but the UI exists.

5 minutes ago, Jasoncw said:

Also, if it's possible, ideally (for a style based system) there would be an image with buildings next to the community tilesets, like there is for the Maxis tilesets. Just having some images of representative buildings would help players a lot. Presumably, being the year 2025, we can assume we have 1080 pixels of safe space to work with.

The DLL does not support the image control that Maxis used, and I can't think of an easy way to add support for it. Plus the amount of space that is required for a preview image above each check box would limit the number of check boxes.

[Cyclone Boom 16,854]

48 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

Plus the amount of space that is required for a preview image above each check box would limit the number of check boxes.

Good point. In terms of the building styles images like on the default Maxis panel:

Since these images take up 160 x 77 each, it'd mean with a current line spacing of 21 pixels, we'd lose about 4 out of every 5 slots.

So instead, perhaps a way forward is someone could create a chart with images and descriptions. Have it exported as a PDF or image, and anyone could print that out or display it on a second screen as a visual reference. It'd be a bit like this illustration for game shortcuts.

----------

In terms of the poll...

It sure is incredibly close. Right now after 117 votes there's only 3 splitting the difference! Based on this, I agree it's already safe to conclude there's no definitive community consensus about which method is preferable. If we can work out a unified system where people can swap either option based on the INI file, that does sound like a good way forward. Or combine both options into one could be an even better solution.

Since the poll is already running, I think we should keep it going, but now realise it will not be binding. It's well worth us exploring a compromise to all this. Perhaps the "Other" UI option (on Jason's Option A) could be used for both, so that way there's the catch-all fallback for other styles.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

@Kel9509 The proposed Paris 1895 and West Europe tilesets contain almost completely different buildings.

Paris 1895 is for Second Empire buildings, which Paris is iconic for (Porkissimo and Xannepan's Paris BATs are mostly of this style), but this style exists elsewhere around the world. Paris 1895 contains these Second Empire buildings in Paris, but also this Second Empire building in Buenos Aeries. The tileset is named Paris because Paris is internationally famous for this specific style of architecture. Somebody might not know what the term "Second Empire" means, but everyone has a mental image of Paris, and thus knows what Second Empire style is even if the don't know the name for it.

The West Europe tileset is for pre-WW2 buildings in Western Europe. It includes these buildings in Amsterdam, this building in Berlin, and any other building of any other style as long as it is before WW2 and in Western Europe.

Rome 1755 contains pre-industrial styles. It contains these buildings in the Vatican, but also Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (it doesn't go into the Paris 1895 tileset because these tilesets are style-based and not geography-based), and also this cathedral in Mexico. 

The Mediterranean tileset contains this building in Florence (which would also be in Rome 1755), but also this building in Tripoli, and literally every other building that is or could be in any country around the Mediterranean.

 

In Proposal A, the Taipei 2005 and Sao Paulo 2005 tilesets are regional, but they don't function the same way. In Proposal A, these tilesets are only for buildings from those regions that are so distinctive to those regions that very few players would want them in the other tilesets where they would otherwise belong. So most houses in Japan were built within the last 40 years and most of them would normally go into the Houston tileset. But if someone had SOMY's Japanese house BATs in their plugins folder, their city would become a Japanese city if they ever had the Houston tileset on, even if they only wanted one neighborhood to feel Japanese. Meanwhile, this building would just go into the LA 1965 and probably the Rotterdam 1975 tilesets. If someone wanted to make a Japanese city, they would keep Taipei 2005 on, to grow the distinctively Japanese buildings, and then they would use the rest of the tilesets normally, according to their vision. In Proposal B, they would only use the two East Asian tilesets, because those two tilesets would cover all buildings, historic or contemporary, that are or could be in that region, including this building (which in Proposal A would be in New York 1935).

[Kel9509 1,357]

1 hour ago, Jasoncw said:

@Kel9509 The proposed Paris 1895 and West Europe tilesets contain almost completely different buildings.

Well, that just shows how much I know about architecture!  I was hopeful that there could be some commonality among the Options, but I guess not?  

I will say, Option A may give greater flexibility but it seems harder to manage for a layman like me.  I'm not sure how to balance flexibility with ease of use, particularly for people who don't have knowledge of this stuff.  

[EffTheGrid 3,668]

8 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

I think the main choice for players is deciding what their main goal is for the tilesets.

For example, you are making a city and you imagine it being a city in Eastern Europe.

Option A - Style Based

Advantage: You can choose which styles grow at different times, and you can select and unselect tilesets based on your own vision for the history and character of your Eastern European city. You also have more buildings/variety in each tileset, because buildings of the same style are being pooled together, rather than divided based on regional variation.

Disadvantage: The styles you want will grow, but regional variants of those styles will leak in. For example, German and Swedish historical buildings would grow with your Eastern European historical buildings because they're all in the "Berlin 1915" tileset.

Option B - Region Based

Advantage: It is guaranteed that only buildings appropriate for Eastern Europe will grow.

Disadvantage: You have very little control beyond that. The "Eastern Europe" tileset contains both historic and contemporary buildings (everything from the dawn of man to today. Baroque, commie blocks, renaissance, brutalist, postmodern. everything) and it will all grow at the same time. If you turn off the "Eastern Europe" tileset and turn on "Postmodernism" and/or "European Contemporary" then the postwar Eastern European buildings will grow again, but so will all the postwar buildings which don't belong in Eastern Europe, which defeats the purpose of basing tilesets on region in the first place. There's no way with Option B to only grow historic Eastern European buildings.

 

Overall, if you're a person who cares a lot about the fine details of buildings, (like regional variants, signage language, plant species, retail brands, car models, etc.) fitting in with your region but you don't care about what grows other than that, then pick Option B. If you're a person who cares about having a lot of control over what grows when (for example, having different buildings grow when you're working on your historic CBD vs when you're working on your new suburbs), but you don't mind that the buildings are actually from all over the world, then pick Option A.

OPINION:

I propose another option. Let's assign building style based on YEAR BUILT.

You've revealed my hidden preference for why I like option A - because personally, I grow my cities by historical period, so toggling styles by year is a natural and beneficial process to growing my cities in a way that makes sense.

For instance, almost all of my builds are from the NY region. When I make a colonial or federal style building, it's Chi1890, if it's a prewar building it's Chi1890 and NY1940, because it would grow during both those eras, and postwar gets NY1940 and Hou1980 because those buildings would grow during those periods, regardless of city of origin. Plus I know I use hundreds of historic UK, Australian, and Canadian buildings to represent the USA and they are ALL NY-1940. It would be a pain to reclassify all of these similar-looking, contemporaneous lots into new categories with discontemporary modernist buildings sorted into the mix based on regional location alone. It wouldn't make sense to me.

This raises the question - are geographical presets important, at all?

The way we use building styles now is completely arbitrary and almost all based on the time period were aiming to represent. = i.e. players making modernist buildings are of course placing Euro and American and Asian content in the contempo categories, while federal, deco, and most traditional architecture is relegated to 1890s and 1940s exclusively, REGARDLESS of time period or nation of origin. And the Euro tileset, which is a mess of medieval Mediterranean buildings all the way thru modern Frankfurt am Main. 

I believe removing geographical and architectural implications from this equation could leave more freedom in the hands of the player's curated plugins folder. Personally, I don't download a lot of growable content that conflicts with my personal taste or stylistic intentions, so I won't worry about "foreign architecture" invading my cities.

Plus, buildings with similar styles from different regions would be organically grouped together based on time period ----- as would modernist, futurist, deco, etc, ----- regardless of international origin. Buildings would all rise at appropriate times when technology and reality would allow.

Even players with Soviet regions would benefit as, for example, Stalinkas and Krushchevkas would rise at their historically accurate periods rather than at the same time, allowing for more realistic planning than just "Eastern Europe" style.

European players would love this because all baroque buildings from the period would be easily found growing together; same with neocalssical, art-nouveau, etc. They were represented more by their period than by their city or nation of origin - as any player with a diverse plugins folder would tell you.

Periods are a better catch-all for this project than indeterminable and imprecise approximations about "what makes a style".

This method unites building styles rather than divide them in ways that don't make sense to everybody.

So, what if the presets were just 30 year intervals, with no reference to region? Maybe a little longer for medieval times.

1600, 1700, 1800, 1830, 1860, (existing Chi)1890, (existing NY)1920, 1950, (existing Hou)1980, (existing Euro)2010, 2040, etc.

Isn't that simple? Every building was BUILT in a particular year- what if we just assigned values based on year built?

i.e, my house was built in 1910, so it belongs in 1890.

or, your office was built in 1969, so it belongs to 1950. 

and the old factory was built in 1842, so it belongs to 1830.

This would provide a very organic way to decide where (when) every building is coded without the need for any major consensus among creators or players - just a google search for building records would do. It also creates natural groupings of coincidental architectural styles regardless of regional origin which will be helpful for players to experience a more broad range of their own downloaded content.

Most importantly, it encourages users to download MORE lots becuase they will be useful, rather than having to be MORE PICKY on the exchange, because a lot is not going to grow with their presets (i.e., "I like this building, but it's the Copenhagen 1735 tileset so I've never seen it before"  )

A player could theoretically start the clock at 1860 (or any year) and let all the building styles play out in simulated years, as the game allows already.

Keep in mind, building styles are the tool we use to keep the SIMULATOR doing what we want it to. This allows time periods to accurately be simulated in-game, more autonomously, with less user input (bulldozing and historicalizing lots that appear too modern for storytelling purposes) - this is where Option B would destroy my personal gameplay experience, by removing the layer of realism provided by time-period-sensitive growth in favor of a cultural rebranding. 

Presently I think both options A and B are receiving valid criticisms and I believe this neutral third option bridges many of the gaps. 

Option A is generally too specific, while Option B is generally too vague.

Who agrees or disagrees?

[EffTheGrid 3,668]

Option C - Year based

The building style is determined by the date of the building's construction, or renovation.

You are setting the TIME PERIOD ONLY - Location is not a factor.

Below is a list from ChatGPT of "all" major world building styles from 1500 to modern day.

I believe you will notice that buildings of specific styles belong to specific periods regardless of national origin.

So imagine the below styles are only represented by their "CIRCA" - like the fine antiques they are.

This is just to give a rough idea about which styles appeared simultaneously throughout history.

circa. 1500

• Renaissance (1400–1600) – Revival of classical Greek and Roman architecture, with symmetry, proportion, and columns. (Italy, Europe)
• Gothic (12th–16th century) – Characterized by pointed arches, ribbed vaults, and flying buttresses. (Europe)
• Mughal Architecture (1526–1857) – Indo-Islamic style with domes, minarets, and intricate detailing. (India)
• Aztec Architecture (14th–16th century) – Step pyramids, grand plazas, and temple complexes. (Mesoamerica)
• Portuguese Colonial (15th–18th century) – A blend of European and local styles, adapted for tropical climates. (Brazil, Goa, Macau)

---

circa. 1600

• Baroque (1600–1750) – Highly ornate, dramatic, and theatrical, with curved forms and grandeur. (Italy, France, Spain)
• Elizabethan (1550–1620) – Early English Renaissance style with gables, mullioned windows, and courtyards. (England)
• Jacobean (1603–1625) – A more elaborate version of Elizabethan architecture, influenced by classical styles. (England)
• Spanish Colonial (16th–19th century) – Mission-style churches, thick adobe walls, and decorative details. (Americas, Philippines)
• Chinese Late Ming Dynasty Architecture (1368–1644) – Evolution of classical Chinese forms with elaborate roofs and wooden structures.

---

circa. 1700

• Rococo (1700–1780) – Lighter, decorative, and asymmetrical, often pastel-colored. (France, Germany, Austria)
• Neoclassicism (1750–1830) – Revival of Greek and Roman architecture, focusing on simplicity and grandeur. (Europe, U.S.)
• Georgian (1714–1830) – Symmetrical buildings with classical elements and brick facades. (Britain, American colonies)
• Qing Dynasty Architecture (1644–1912) – Continued development of traditional Chinese palatial and temple designs.
• Churrigueresque (late 17th–18th century) – Highly ornamented Spanish Baroque style. (Spain, Latin America)

---

circa. 1800

• Neoclassical (1750–1830) – Continuation of classical influences with grand columns and symmetrical forms. (Europe, U.S.)
• Empire Style (1800–1830s) – A Napoleonic version of Neoclassicism, emphasizing power and grandeur. (France)
• Greek Revival (1800–1850) – Imitation of ancient Greek temples with Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns. (Europe, U.S.)
• Federal Style (1780–1840) – Simple yet elegant, derived from Neoclassicism. (U.S.)
• Biedermeier (1815–1848) – A modest, simplified version of Neoclassicism in Germany and Austria.

---

circa. 1830

• Gothic Revival (1740–1860) – Inspired by medieval Gothic architecture, featuring pointed arches and elaborate tracery. (Europe, U.S.)
• Victorian (1837–1901) – A broad category including multiple revival styles, such as Gothic, Romanesque, and Italianate. (Britain, U.S.)
• Rundbogenstil (1820s–1860s) – A mix of Romanesque and Renaissance elements with rounded arches. (Germany)
• Carpenter Gothic (1840–1900) – A wooden, decorative version of Gothic Revival for American homes.

---

circa. 1860

• Second Empire (1850–1880) – French-inspired, with mansard roofs and decorative details. (France, U.S.)
• High Victorian Gothic (1850s–1880s) – A more colorful, polychromatic version of Gothic Revival. (Britain, U.S.)
• Richardsonian Romanesque (1870–1900) – Heavy, rounded-arch stone buildings. (U.S.)
• Beaux-Arts (1830s–1900s) – Classical grandeur with modern engineering techniques. (France, U.S.)
• Arts and Crafts (1860–1920s) – Reaction against industrialization, emphasizing craftsmanship and natural materials. (Britain, U.S.)

---

circa. 1890

• Art Nouveau (1890–1910) – Flowing, organic lines inspired by nature. (Europe, U.S.)
• Chicago School (1880s–1910s) – Early skyscraper architecture with steel-frame construction. (U.S.)
• Shingle Style (1870s–1910s) – Informal, wooden architecture with minimal ornamentation. (U.S.)
• Queen Anne (1880s–1910s) – Highly decorative, asymmetrical homes with turrets and wraparound porches. (U.S.)
• Mission Revival (1890–1915) – Inspired by Spanish missions, featuring stucco walls and red tile roofs. (U.S., Mexico)

---

circa. 1920

• Art Deco (1920–1940s) – Bold, geometric forms with industrial influences. (Worldwide)
• Modernism (1920s–1970s) – Functional, minimalist design rejecting ornamentation. (Worldwide)
• Bauhaus (1919–1933) – A fusion of art, craft, and technology, emphasizing function. (Germany)
• Expressionism (1910s–1930s) – Dramatic, non-linear designs with sculptural qualities. (Germany, Netherlands)
• International Style (1920s–1970s) – Glass, steel, and minimalist geometric forms. (Worldwide)

---

circa. 1950

• Brutalism (1950s–1980s) – Large, raw concrete structures with fortress-like appearances. (Europe, U.S., Soviet Union)
• Mid-Century Modern (1945–1970) – Clean lines, open spaces, integration with nature. (U.S., Europe)
• New Formalism (1950s–1970s) – A modernist reinterpretation of classical forms. (U.S.)
• Metabolism (1950s–1970s) – Modular, flexible structures designed for urban growth. (Japan)

---

circa. 1980

• Postmodernism (1960s–1990s) – Eclectic, playful reinterpretations of past styles. (Worldwide)
• High-Tech (1970s–1990s) – Exposed structural elements and industrial materials. (Europe, U.S.)
• Deconstructivism (1980s–present) – Fragmented, non-linear architecture breaking traditional forms. (Worldwide)
• Tropical Modernism (1950s–present) – Modernist principles adapted to warm climates. (Southeast Asia, Africa)

---

circa. 2010

• Sustainable Architecture (2000s–present) – Eco-friendly, energy-efficient designs. (Worldwide)
• Parametricism (2000s–present) – Algorithm-driven, futuristic designs with fluid forms. (Worldwide)
• Neo-Futurism (2000s–present) – High-tech, visionary designs emphasizing innovation. (Worldwide)
• Contemporary Vernacular (2010s–present) – Modern interpretations of traditional local styles. (Worldwide)

Many more regional styles exist and ALL of them have come and gone and can fit within this framework.

 

What do you think about this simplified approach?

All of the above styles span the globe, but mostly adhere to specific time periods.

Therefore it makes more sense to group them by TIME and not PLACE.

Every building has a date of construction and that value is more important in terms of the simulator's role than is the cultural or architectural origin of a building.

I don't understand how the simulator can work properly if it is fed buildings which are from different time frames.

Under plan A or especially B, buildings have greater probability to appear with dissimilar buildings than if they were categorized in this simple way.

This allows better control and cohesion of the plugins folder, and eliminates the need for much user input at the grow stage.

Your buildings will just grow WHEN they are supposed to.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,408]

We agree that the vote is stalled and we agree that we cannot find any solution to this stalemate.

The only city builders that use multiple building styles are:

SimCity 3000, SimCity 4, SimCity 2013, Cities Skylines 1 and Cities Skylines 2

In SimCity 3000 we have the following styles

• North America
• Europe
• Asia

In SimCity 4 we have the following styles

• Chicago 1890
• New York 1940
• Houston 1990
• Euro Contemporary

In SimCity 2013 we have the following styles

• North America
• Paris
• London
• Berlin
• Cyberpunk (Dystopia)
• Solarpunk (Utopia)

In Cities Skylines 1 we have the following styles

• North America
• Europe
• Many styles based on architecture, fanatsy and geography

In Cities Skylines 2 we have the following styles

• North America (North American Contemporary, West Coast, East Coast, North American Riviera)
• Europe (Contemporary Europe - Europe Riviera)
• Japan
• China
• East Europe
• France
• Germany
• Modern Architecture
• Urban Promenades

As we can see most city builders are based on geographic location while to a lesser extent on architecture.

@Jasoncw has already explained in previous posts the issues that options A and B have, and even option C (A and B coexist) present several issues due to some differences.

Option D (Time Classification), although it may solve many of the problems of proposals A, B, and C, may be too complex for average players and for those who practice BAT but are not experts in architectural styles, causing a possible distancing effect from modding BAT.

Finally there is option E which is to cancel the community styles and each person use the mods that other people develop but this option I would like to not use it and try to find a solution that satisfies the good part of the people because it is already difficult to find a solution that gets people in common agreement and as a result there will always be a part of the community that will be unhappy

A solution has to be found because we are blocking a mod for 8 months and we still haven't found a solution. We know that pleasing everyone is impossible and it is time to choose the necessary evil although it may make some people unhappy.

 

[Ulisse Wolf 4,408]

Reflecting in the discussions on discord I may have found a possible solution to this impasse but cooperation is required from all

We know that Option A has been considered too US-European Centric and is more selective so it is very useful in building control.

Option B on the other hand is more globalized, and easier to use since other city builders have adopted something similar but it is too dispersed and therefore less selective in the buildings you want to grow.

Now since I manage the IIDs of the additional styles I had programmed 16 community styles (4 Maxis Original + 12 additional community styles) but since in 8 months we have not found a solution I am thinking that maybe we need to extend these 16 community styles and go to 32 available community styles which allows

• Option A to have a Global view and allow it to be less restrictive (If you have a Japanese Art Deco building and you want it in the titleset of Empire of Japan and not the New York one you can do it)

• Option B to be more restrictive by including more precise architectures and gegraphic positions. (So instead of West Europe you can use France indicating only buildings developed in France)

[Barroco Hispano 26,671]

8 hours ago, EffTheGrid said:

The building style is determined by the date of the building's construction

I like your proposal. Separating by construction date helps to better classify buildings.

It would also be nice if in each Building style the commercial and residential buildings were separated (Cyberpunk Commercial & Cyperpunk Residential) as this way you can have the Hong Kong commercial skycrapers without the possibility of a pencil apartment tower growing into your residential area.

 

[matias93 7,535]

3 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Reflecting in the discussions on discord I may have found a possible solution to this impasse but cooperation is required from all

We know that Option A has been considered too US-European Centric and is more selective so it is very useful in building control.

Option B on the other hand is more globalized, and easier to use since other city builders have adopted something similar but it is too dispersed and therefore less selective in the buildings you want to grow.

Now since I manage the IIDs of the additional styles I had programmed 16 community styles (4 Maxis Original + 12 additional community styles) but since in 8 months we have not found a solution I am thinking that maybe we need to extend these 16 community styles and go to 32 available community styles which allows

• Option A to have a Global view and allow it to be less restrictive (If you have a Japanese Art Deco building and you want it in the titleset of Empire of Japan and not the New York one you can do it)

• Option B to be more restrictive by including more precise architectures and gegraphic positions. (So instead of West Europe you can use France indicating only buildings developed in France)

Making Option A more global just entails using a slightly different naming scheme for it. You could swap Rome for Lima, Paris with Buenos Aires, Los Angeles with Mexico City, Rotterdam with Brasilia and Copenhagen with Panama City and have basically the same scheme but Latin American themed. Probably the only difficult one to assign would be Berlin, it could be Valparaíso.

Such a thing would probably be possible for every other region in the world, because the underlying historical fact is that European civilizations colonised the entire world and their aesthetical sensibilities diffused all around. Now, that Latin American re-theming feels intuitive to me, because I'm from here, but probably would be completely cryptical to a player from Jakarta or Lagos, whereas all of us (again, because of the European cultural influence) would be able to understand the European-themed scheme.

I still think that option A is the best approach, but, as I proposed on the previous thread about this, I think it would be far easier to evaluate which scheme is more comfortable to use if we showcased a prototype of each one, classifying a handful of buildings for each style in each scheme, so that the voters could get a feel of them.