estevesbk

Thanks for the replies! So basically a city doesn't need too many parks to get the desirability it needs (unless there are other un-desriable effects like high air pollution, etc.), but if I want to see real growth it's better to use this "transient aura effect"? Trees do the job better them? Just place them over the low-density lot? Do I need to exit and re-enter or they work right away? Also, if with trees I don't get what I want, I suppose tress + parks will do the trick?

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$$$, and none of the buildings were abandoned. I will post a Screenshot on the Residential Pyramid topic of what I'm doing when I've finished to build my first city again. I don't know if the solution is as good as yours, but it worked for now. Well, but the difference is not that much. I usually don't set my taxes below 8%. 7% is my minimal, for I-A. and CS-$. And 20% for I-D. I was thinking in taxing CS-$$ 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?

Thanks for another good reply! But what about our old discussion about the "Residential Pyramid"? If I don't overtax R$$$ a little they become more than 15% of the pop. And then you see where it goes... No jobs, building deterioration, etc. That's what I was thinking. Interesting you tax more CO$$$ than CO$$, is that to avoid them to deteriorate?

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?

So, I know parks are a tool for relieving CAP's... But what's the real effect of keeping a park on desirability and growth? I mean, in my first city after years not playing SC4, Residential and Commercial buildings require to be surrounded by parks to see any significant development from low to medium and medium to high densities (all other factors satisfied, like education, health, police, fire protection, low pollution, demand, etc.) Doesn't matter how green is the desirability data view, if I don't do that, no significant growth. Then I just bulldoze the parks, and the buildings stay there, no "penalties" for "fooling" the Sims like "hey, move to my city and you will have 6 skateboard parks near you" and next month they're just gone. Any parks that I already have before doing that are not sufficient (I tend to keep one small flower garden and one small playground every 6 blocks, but they just don't do their jobs on really helping zones to grow) Let's also say I have one small plaza surrounding some commerce. If I keep bulldozing it and then re-placing over time, it seems also much better to encourage growth than placing a large plaza and keeping it there without bulldozing and re-placing. Is that basically their real effect? As a temporary regional development booster to be demolished soon after? Or am I missing something? Many thanks in advance for the replies! Edit: I also don't see any long term increase in mayor rating. They boost temporarily and then it drops soon. Seems it makes no difference on mayor rating between having 5 and 50 parks?

Thanks z1! But overall in your opinion rail-only connections will not affect demands, etc. if I have a good rail or transportation system also in the other town?

So, I've made a new city in the Gaunlet Island's Region. At the year 40, here's the situation: I've created a low-wealth residential district surrounded by SPAM farms (could surround with I-D and make them historial but I don't like pollution) and with rail connection to the rest of the city. I've made all the buildings historical. There's a Hospital and an Elementary School providing civics. At the south, there's R$$/R$$$, C$$/C$$$ and I-M/I-HT: Here's my Population by Age graphic: Here's my demand: Now, I've ran 30 years without changing anything by myself. Now, look what happens to the Population by Age: As you can see, the proportion for R$ and R$$ has gone steady: ------------ Now my question: Let's suppose I've ran out of space for new zones. How should I proceed to make the population young again? Bulldozing the R$ buildings? And have I done everything right or did I provide too many or too few civcs for the lower class? Thanks in advance for any replies!

Thanks A Noony Moose! =)

^ Thanks! But then if I have enough R$, I will always have enough young people, no matter how much time it passes without new R$?

Thanks A Nonny Moose, and what if all the spots of the city are already occupied, how to keep the population young? I'm not sure if the right thing is to bulldoze R$ tenements outside the education zone, or R$$ buildings inside the education zone?

So, basically, R$ shoud always be more than R$$ in a city or region and that's it?

Thanks, very interesting. I am having problems for R$$ to growing from low to medium-density zones. Besides the basics - demand, desirability, education, health, police and fire and low commute time - they seem to require lots of parks to grow from low to medium density... Eventually I can "push" some development but at the cost of many parks being placed for a too small zone. Even a flower garden and a playground for each 6 tiles may not be sufficient. Maybe it's the standard behavior, or maybe it's lack of R$. I understand that in all countries the number or proportion of "rich" people are few... But that's not true about lower and middle class. They seem to differ greatly. There are countries with much more "R$" than "R$$" and others with much more "R$$" than "R$". I don't know how is California model, neither the proportion that there is in this specific state of low-class to middle-class people. Also, we need to consider that it was 10 years ago. Here in my country, some datas suggest that the number of middle-class people are increasing in proportion to the number of low-class people. I know that R$ can't be and neither should be "avoided". But it's good to know if they need to represent 50% of a city's population to keep it running or if you are able to keep about 70% of R$$ and just 15% of R$ and R$$$. In other words, it's clear and logic that R$$$ should represent just a little of the total city's population. In any corporation, we have just a few "bosses". But the proportion of R$$ to R$ is still a little "obscure"... How many people cleaning toilets and how many people in better (R$$) jobs at the same building?

Thanks! =) After searching the Forums I've seen many similar threads with people having their cities "sinking" and they don't know why... Perhaps this thread could be linked when any of these cases appears again? It was made to discuss the problem itself not concerning a specific situation. What I'm still confused is... What makes a city stop growing and abandonment due to lack of jobs with no other apparent reason: (low demand, cap, lack of I and C zones, commute time, etc.) - Is the problem the AGE? - Or is the problem the lack of R$? I know that if you attract new people they will begin with R$ and then the average age will push back towards left on the graphic... Then they will educate, etc. But what about keeping an old population but with a decent amount R$? Maybe even give full health care but not education for a zone with R$ only? - Will the city experience the same problem because of lack of young people, regardless of having more R$? If not and the problem is solved, we could point out that: - Always when you have too few R$, the "Population by Age" graphic will point towards right. - But not always when the "Population by Age" graphic point towards right you have too few R$. Then the question continues: Younger people begin being R$. But is the problem the age itself or the amount of R$?

So, following some very good posts from jacksunny and A Nonny Moose at this thread: To avoid being too off-topic, I've thought it was best to create a new thread. As far as I undestrand, we are supposed to limit R$$$ and also have at least some amount of R$ to have a well-balanced city. The R$ seems to be needed to attract young people. Limiting R$$$ to avoid commute time and lack of jobs issues. My first question: Is it really a "pyramid"? I like a lot of R$$, do I really need to have less R$$ than R$? Second question: How to limit R$$$? Taxes? How much? Third question: How to keep R$? 1. Bulldozing some R$$ buildings? 2. Placing a zone without education reach? 3. In case of number 2, could I offer health care on this zone? Last Question: If I'm depeding solely on a single city and not on sharing region's demands, how much of each do you recommend on having? R$$$ - ? % R$$ - ? % R$ - ? % Thanks in advance! Edit: Ok, just one more: With SPAM, can I have virtually no I-D and still maintain a decent non-educated R$ population?

It could be. Check your "Population by age" graph. If the right columns are higher than the right, then your city is likely "dying." Thanks... and what's the best strategy to "fix" that? 1. Keep a constant zone with only R$ (no schools, high schools or library... just in doubt if I can place at least a hospital?) 2. Bulldoze some R$$ buildings. 3. Any other ? It's hard to understand SC4 engine... lol Is it really a "pyramid" or only 10-20% of R$ may keep the city alive already?