Nick9099

yes farms are huge culprits for water pollution, and in the real world too (runoff, manure, fertilizers etc)

thepokemaniac: indeed. look at the signs approaching from the south on osborne street great, isn't it!

You know your in a tall building when Skyscrapers and Supertalls look like low rises.... Still, looking around the tower, you can tell that Dubai can never compete with the likes of London, New York and Paris.quote> or Detroit. quote> In my opinion the only truly world cities today are London, and New York. If you include Paris and Detriot then you must include Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Tokyo, Sydney, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Montreal, Berlin, Osaka, etc, etc. and the list gets too long. Why do people find this worrying? I don't.

Another for the CN tower, although the Burj Dubai might be a contender once opened. It looks spectacular at night, and not only that, but the CN tower was for a long time the tallest structure in the world (not technically a building) and now sits at number 2.

Originally posted by: Muck308 There will be construction in Dubai for years to come. If the city is a canvas, then they'll need to do more than finish the Burj Dubai to make it complete. I eagerly await a somewhat finished product! (Because when is a city really ever complete?)quote> The real place to watch in the coming years will be Abu Dhabi, just down the road fron Dubai. While it's common knowledge that Dubai gets it's wealth fron oil, actually most of that oil is not in Dubai but in Abu Dhabi. On the original topic though, I guess the CN tower here in Canada gets to keep ot's title a little longer (at least as tallest opened structure in the world)

Originally posted by: site400 My entire neighborhood could let all their cars idle in their driveways for a full year and still not burn as much fossil fuel as all those "climate concerned world leaders" will during their "save the planet" conference; not to mention the fuel burned by all those private jets...these guys ever heard of commercial flights? I'm a simple person . If people way smarter than me tell me I need to reduce my energy in order to save the planet and then they go out and guzzle energy like a bum in a liquor store...guess what...I'm not taking them seriously. quote> Keep things in perspective here. Even if the Copenhagen Confrence has a carbon footprint of 40 000 tons (about mid-range in the estimates), but cuts global pollution by millions of tons, wouldn't you say it's worth it? I agree that the conference could have been more eco-friendly, but we shouldn't let that stand in the way of making real progress.

Originally posted by: Duke87 And that's nice and all, but the question remains: what concentration is necessary to hinder respiration and is that concentration achieved in practice any appreciable ammount? And even if it is, d'ya think new standards sure as hell aren't going to be based on that level, whatever it is? Or are they going to be about "global warming"? I think we all know the answer to that. quote> Generally speaking, CO2 starts to hinder respiration at 5%, and is highly dangerous at 9% and over. Is it acheived in practice? Because CO2 is a trace gas, it only occurs at about 0.035% at most in nature. A crowded gym with poor ventilation might hit 1%, but any concentration higher than that would be the result of an industrial accident, or the faliure of air cleaners on an aeroplane, etc, etc. Even if pollution continues unchecked, it would probably never reach toxic levels. But don't forget the effect that rampant climate change could have on human health.

Although mixing everything may be more functional, I tend to go with a more realistic approach of having industrial areas, the suburbs that spread over much of the region and a few Downtowns where most of the offices are concentrated. This can create problems with transport, but I find that it just looks much better to not have all types of zoning one against the other. Yes, I do use the industry quadrupler and the "improved pathfinding" option in the NAM, but I was planning as described above long before that. P.S. aznshadow, I was under the impression that agriculture demand disappeared after reaching a certain population (100 000?)

although ocassionally the file's info will have a hyperlink to the dependencies (I am thinking of PEG in particular)

Theoretically, though, because demand for the R$$$ is linked to the number of $$$ jobs, they shouldn't build if there are no jobs. It's possible that there are jobs somewhere else in the region that they can't get to. I agree the best option is to keep the levels of R$$$ down in the first place.

Originally posted by: Kusajika Yachiru I personally think the Simcity as we know it is dead.quote> Unfortunately, you're probably right. If you talk to EA, they will tell you that Soscieties is a sucessor to SC4, and XL's developers say the same about XL. Of course, as we all know, Soscieties was not a true sucessor to SC4. We'll have to wait and see about XL, but I don't suspect it will replace SC4 either. Indeed, SC4 would have died long ago if it wasn't for this site and others like it that provide a constant stream of new material. We'll just have to cross our fingers about an SC5.

I usually don't build highways at the start. I may lay out avenues, but I'll usually wait and see where the highway is needed and build it then, so that I can be sure that it is being used. There is always the risk that you build a highway and it is barely used, is wich case you have wasted a phenomenal amount of money. Of course, if you can accurately predict where it is needed, then it makes sense to lay them out beforehand. SC4 doens't tend to give highways the advantage they ought to have over regular roads- often the sims will prefer to use a congested road then an empty freeway. There are mods that improve pathfinding, but if you waight and see where the highways are needed, then you can avoid that problem almost altogether.

It's a toss-up between Paris and London. Paris is fantastic for the lover of art and of food, and is nicer to walk around then London. On the other hand, London has a fantastic theatre scene in the west end and some wonderful museums for more than just art. Of course don't forget the amazing history of both places.

you could always try the "youdontdeserveit" cheat wich makes all of the rewards available.

finding out the problem can be tricky... but the likely possibilities are that A) the jobs were already taken when the residential areas were developed (in wich case they would be forced to look for jobs outside the city) or B) there isn't proper access to the jobs. consider that sims living on one side of an avenue can't cross it if they work opposite (unless they are walking) so they'd have to drive down one side of the avenue, find an intersection, turn around and then come back. Or, C) it may be a legitimate problem with commute times.

Also remember that if your cities are connected to their neigbours they share the same baseline demand. If you want to have a wealthy city seperate from a poor city, you'll either have to use taxes to suppress the kind of development you don't want in that particular city (taxes don't effect your neigbours even if they are connected), or not connect the two.

Hang on, i'll see what I can do.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, I've got a long history of making (hand drawn) maps just for the hell of it. Thing is, I don't have access to a scanner at the moment and the good stuff is way too big to fit on a scanner anyway. really? me too! I am not alone!

The Wallingboro Subway. It carries 80 000 commuters daily through the densest parts of Metro Wallingboro