PattyO

You need to build up a demand for higher-wealth homes by creating better-paying jobs. Better paying jobs are created by moving away from dirty industry and agriculture, and by education. Of course, you can't build an education system in a city without a good tax base or you'll go broke. Also, in order to get high-wealth residential, you need to provide water from a pump or water tower.

Originally posted by: piccboi824 I wasn't tryong to say that highways are cheaper...I support mass transit 100%. I was just making the point that because it is such a big investment and ridership in farther out suburbs is low, transit beyond buses has low priority. quote> Sadly this is true. Freeways cost us so much more in the long run. They encourage the excessive use of cars, which increases gridlock, pollution, and burning of fossil fuels at a heightened rate. People like cars for their convenience (even if you have to suffer with high gas prices and traffic jams), and in places like the suburbs (or rural areas) where everything is spread out, a car is a necessity, since you can't possibly walk or bicycle to everywhere you need to go, and there is no (or very little) mass transit available to you. I think it's also possible that middle class suburbanites might be wary of using mass transit because of the fact that MT is very much a system used by the working class that live in cities; is it possible that the middle class is wary of the problems perceived with people living in the city? No one is really advocating for the much-needed expansion of rail. Why? No one will use it, it seems like a waste of tax money. At this point it all seems like a lose-lose situation; either we build rail that no one uses, or we build freeways that encourage sprawl and unsustainable activity. What I wonder is, what sort of a situation would our country be in if we had never built our freeway / interstate system. If we had instead invested all our resources into revitalizing our rail network, but I guess we'll never know.

Originally posted by: Doofenshmirtz I'd have to say i'm pro sprawl to an extent. For instance if i had the option to extend upwards or outwards, i would usually go for outwards in most cases. However resources such as farmland, forests etc are the main concern i would have rather than internal infrastructure... however... i daresay the future of agriculture will be vastly different, perhaps utilizing indoor farming techniques in masses of skyscrapers built for the purpose... or the creation of an all purpose artificial foodstuff... using chemicals creatable in factories such as vitamins etc. quote> While that would be an ideal, at present time it would be impossible to sustain any major population using indoor-grown food... When things are grown indoors, you have to provide everything - all the light (unless in a greenhouse), all the water and all the plant nutrients, as well as prevent disease from entering the system (since greenhouses are more contained and independent of a greater ecosystem, a disease or insect inside causes more acute damage than in natural environments). At the present time, there's no cost-effective way to grow food indoors (if there was, we'd be doing it by now). Right now, the most efficient and inexpensive manner of producing food is by outdoor agriculture. As for artificial foodstuff, two words - Soylent Green Originally posted by: piccboi824 This really isn't true either. My sister lives in the inner city in a gentrified area and she knows all of her neighbors. They get together and have block parties and cleanup the garbage in their neighborhood and will help each other out whenever. Whenever we are out on her back patio, if her neighbors are out, then they will always say hi to us and start a conversation. When it comes to having a sense of community, it all depends on the people who live there. If you and your neighbors don't take the initiative to form a community or make each other feel welcome, then you're never going to have community whether you live in the city or not. quote> Like it was said above you, all these things aren't universal, and can change depending on a very localized and individual basis. Aside from that, one obstacle that stands in the way of the Suburb is making public transit a desire to those living in the suburbs. It's true, if a system or network or rail line or whatever were built out into the suburbs, very few if any people would use it regularly. It's not as comfortable or convenient as a personal car. What basically needs to happen at this point is a mass brainwashing. We need to convince all suburbanites that they'd rather ride a bus or a train than drive to work.

Originally posted by: Aro0w Originally posted by: piccboi824 I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you. 1.) Building transit takes MILLIONSquote> Isn't bus a form of mass transit? I'm sure that doesn't cost Millions... quote> Well, if you're starting a bus network from scratch... that means buying the buses, setting up stops, most likely a bit of advertising, plus you have constant expenses, which have to be paid whether the buses are being used or not. Even a bus service would be expensive for a real city, not to mention light rail, commuter rail, high speed rail, or subway systems. As far as initial investments go, road and freeway expansion seems to give more bang for the buck. In the long run this proves not to be so as the problems of this approach alone make it very costly.

I see your point. I guess we're at an impasse... there's simply no way I can substantiate what I am telling, except for giving you my word that it's the complete and honest truth. As for the little Obama side-track, it really doesn't matter. He's sworn in now and not much will change that I think. That has little to do with my original topic, mind you. Please close this thread as there is nothing to add to the discussion if you're not willing to accept my word (what possible motive would I have for making this up, btw?) that this is actually happening. Thank you.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Alright, look. You claim you're making something in Wisconsin but stamping "made in Canada" on it. However, you won't say what, or by whom. So, for lack of any actual evidence beyond taking your word for it, I'm going to have to point to rule 31 here: You must have pictures to prove your statements In other words, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that you're not just making this up before I'll believe it. quote> I'd love to show you pictures, but photography in the plant is a fire-able offense, as is breaking the secrecy of some of the products we make; it's just the way it is. I work for a company called Amtec (Amery Technical Products), based in Amery, Wisconsin, that makes products for 3M inc. (among others). That's all I'm really able to discuss without going too far. Anything beyond that and you are just going to have to accept my word for it, because I can't think of any further way I can attempt to prove this without breaking a contract and putting my job on the line. If you can think up a way for me to do that, by all means I am listening. The product I mentioned are called hang tabs - they are strips of plastic with adhesive backs and holes punched into the top. They are used on packages for products in stores, and hung (usually) on racks / shelves in stores. They are made in the United States (we're not the only produce, they could have producers in Canada or elsewhere for all I know), but the intermediate boxes and the cases that are shipped are both labeled 'Made in Canada' . There are a couple other things labeled this way, but other products made in the plant are labeled "Made in USA" . I haven't personally seen or worked with every single product in the plant so I can't really say how much is labelled as Canada vs United States. And to manticorefan, you say prove that Obama wasn't born in the US, I say prove that he wasn't. Because from where I sit he's president right now, so it's going to take a lot of proof to change that fact.

That sort of thing makes me wonder how many 19th Century survivors we have left. I can't even guess how many, probably in the hundreds at this point, if not lower. Does anyone know where such information could be found?

Originally posted by: noypi07 It is impossible and impractical to make larger cities. Impossible since you need to edit the main .exe for it to work, which may harm the game itself. Impractical since a larger city requires more RAM, etc, which will make crashes more often and game much slower.quote> Todays machines are beginning to overcome your second statement, but the first statement will always remain. Altering the main game is too risky, you risk losing everything.

Well, that's awesome then. I do have one further suggestion if you feel ambitious. I don't know where the game saves- if it saves to the game's regular save file, but if possible I think it should save to an autosave file. That way a game won't be permanently automatically saved if the builder does something that they don't want to save (starts a disaster in their city, for instance) and autosave kicks in before they're able to exit out of the city (in case they forget to shut off autosave). I don't know if this is possible (i've never worked with coding or programming, etc) but that would be cool in a 2nd version as well.

A quick question to you... I understand if you don't want to say, but can you give any hint how you did this. It seems all very astounding that SC4 has been out for 6 years now and no one so far has written a code to avert a very well-known and annoying bug, yet you wrote one in a night. Also, as was said on page 1 of this thread, does this tool save the game data and the satellite image, or just game data? Because someone on 1st page suggested that instead of saving both, you save just data with this tool so that save times are brought to a minimum... can you investigate to see if this is possible for a second version? Nevertheless I will be downloading this immediately. Thank you! *Edit* I googled an autosave as well and found a blog by someone named "The Real Red" who just created (June 28,2009) an autosave for SC4 - I can see that Lord Yabo saw this as well on the 15th of July and posted a thank-you, saying "Based on ideas in this article I wrote a simpler to install and use C# version." Therefore, I think that if this program does work, credit is due to this "Real Red" as well for writing the base for what would become Lord Yabo's program. Just my $0.02 the-real-red.blogspot.com/2009/06/sim-city-4-crashing-to-desktop-autosave.html << The Real Red's blog

Originally posted by: Blue Lightning Do you use a wireless keyboard? If so there is a button you have to press for keystrokes longer than 2 (usually, some keyboards don't have/need one)quote> I have a wireless keyboard and that keystroke works just fine for me. Besides, I think it has to be at least 4 keys anyway for what you're referring to (othwerise how would something like ctrl+alt+delete work?).

Are you in a city or you in the region, because I know that ctrl+shift+C doesn't work for photos in region view. Otherwise I'd suggest just using print screen if you really need to take a picture, it's a little more annoying to do it that way but you won't have the photo menu sticking into your shot.

Originally posted by: chris0101 What's so sad about a car made in Canada? Our labour laws are on par if not better, as our environmental standards. (Of course, by that logic, we should all buy things made from Western Europe) Nobody is being paid $2 an hour or anything like that. Furthermore, most outsourcing is not from the US to Canada, it is from the developed world to the rest of the world where wages are lower, costs are cheaper, taxes are lower, and laws are more lax. quote> Americans, when they buy American cars from an American company expect that those cars are actually built in America. It's not that Canada isnt'a good place, but Americans expect (incorrectly) that American automakers will manufacture nationally, when it's not the case. And I heard about Toyota... I don't know if its all the cars they sell in the US that are made here, but I think its a good idea. Any way to increase manufacturing in the US is fine by me, so long as it's done reasonably.

No like I said the products used in the final product were all from the US... some of them even made in the same building. My issue is more or less. could a company make something in another place and pass it off as american-made?

Originally posted by: confused04 I love that you are from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area cause its something I can actually discuss ( as I live near the Cathedral in Saint Paul). Although, from your experiences, the suburbs have been engulfing the exurbs in Wisconsin, compared to other cities, Minneapolis-Saint Paul has a very small suburban area for our population. Minneapolis, like Portland, OR, have development boundaries so MSP doesn't expand that much. Yes the metro area is clearly into Wisconsin now, thats not saying much because the only thing between downtown Saint Paul and Wisconsin is the skinny Washington county (which in itself is still predominately rural). quote> OK, I do know that much about Washington Co... if you drive from Hudson towards St. Paul, there's pretty sparce development until you just about reach 694/494, so that's true. There is no denying growth both in that county and across the St. Croix (although in this recession, who knows how much). Suburbanites (as in the populace, not the governing bodies) in the Twin Cities actually support light rail in droves. Whatever decreases traffic in their morning commute is fine, even if it doesn't benefit them directly. Park and rides provide excellent alternative options for parking downtown. quote> That I agree with too, I've gone by them in the cities and they always seem packed. Its the outstate people (like Brainerd) that get upset over mass transit funding. But thankfully, MSP is getting a system of light rail going so that the current Hiawatha line will not be alone. They just started utility work on the Central Corridor, a line connecting Minneapolis-Saint Paul which will have MUCH higher ridership than the current line. They are about to choose an alignment for the Southwest Corridor (Eden Praire, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, etc) and they are doing an alternative analysis for the Bottineau Corridor (Northwest) and the Rush Line Corridor which was a commuter rail project until a light rail line from White Bear Lake to downtown Saint Paul appeared like a very cost effecient option. So 4 new lines in the work. The only issue is that suburban governments are kinda weery cause they believe crime will follow the light rail and that kids might have issues crossing the tracks (umm... this isn't hard folks). quote> That's good And no, it's not difficult to stay off the tracks. The way I see it, if an idiot plays chicken with a train, then at least that idiot isn't alive to procreate and make more idiots what will ruin the world. That might be a little harsh, but I believe I've made my point. On top of that, the North Star Line isn't just a proposal. Its almost done, Its opening in a few months and its commuter rail. quote> I stand corrected! I guess I hadn't been paying the most attention to it. I think a commuter rail into wisconsin would be brilliant. quote> I can't see that getting off the ground; they still haven't built a new Stillwater bridge and people have been talking about it for decades. I don't know the opinion of a Minnesotan, but I think the bridge into Minnesota is more important for the Wisconsinites than it is for the Minnesotans... which is odd because the Wisconsin Legislature doesn't seem to want to go along with the deal. Oh well, I guess it will take the Stillwater Lift Bridge to collapse during rush hour before anything will be done about the situation. The Union Depot in Saint Paul is being set to become a multimodal transporation hub and the new Target Field stadium is also a new transportation hub (Hiawatha, Central, Northstar, bike highways, buses, possibly southwest corridor). Is it sad that our transportation system is centralized on a baseball stadium . Minneapolis is also working on getting 4 street car lines going for a total cost of roughly a billion dollars. Which would be awesome!!! quote> It's a shame that the Twin Cities have to basically reset the transportation network... back in the old days it had a very extensive privately-operated streetcar network from what I've read. But this sounds like good progress to me. Also, personally I love the Hiawatha line, I find it VERY useful. It connects the Mall, Minnehaha Falls, Lake Street (which you can transfer to Uptown), the Metrodome and the warehouse district... utterly useful Thankfully, the Hiawatha lines ridership has already reached its 2030 projections quote> True, but you also live in the cities themselves. To outside the Twin Cities themselves, it makes no difference.