Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK

zxqv8 posted:

In that same vein, are we going to see commercial spaces have parking built into the lot designs, perhaps affected by how lanes are delineated by the player? One thing that's 'off' to me in the SC4 aesthetic is that you don't see the kind of parking arrangements around bigger commercial spaces that are standard in many urban areas, especially in the US. Where the hell are all those shoppers supposed to be parking?

I think I recall seeing some others inquire about this, but I don't recall seeing it discussed in any depth. Apologies if I'm retreading.

That makes me think that lot generation could be pretty heavily based on its surrounding and look at how people are getting to these places. Have lots of transportation, a big bus infrastructure, and way less road focus? Your buildings are going to generate much more dense, they'll have less parking and look more pedestrian friendly with bigger sidewalks and things like outdoor cafes.

On the opposite end, if the lot looks at the surroundings and sees giant 6 lane roads, a distinct lack of a transportation, etc, it's going to build more suburban looking buildings like strip-malls with big parking lots and single family homes with large yards.

It would be super awesome to me to watch a city react as you change its infrastructure. A new tram line runs through a suburban shopping district, maybe it cuts a couple lanes off of a giant stroad and connects a popular dense residential area to the shopping district. As the game looks at new demands and looks at rebuilding lots it sees that less people are arriving by car. Not all of the stip-malls just disappear, but the parking lots start getting smaller as more business fills them in. Some of them are just replaced with some new more pedestrian conscious buildings.

After that you add a couple bus lines that run service into the surrounding suburbs and that tram now runs right into the CBD of your city. The game looks again at the change in transportation and decides to boost the density again, and you're starting to see something like the transit-oriented development in Arlington VA where you have these clusters of high density around transportation that taper off in the surrounding areas. and as you continue to add more transportation in the area the city density responds accordingly.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK

Iunnrais posted:

Parking lots would make a good ordinance. If you want cars to go directly to their destination, require every store to maintain its own parking lot. This will make for sparse suburban style concrete wastelands. For denser inner city or Eurostyle towns, don't require parking lots for each store, and rely on plopped parking lots/towers-- then cars will have to go park first, and then walk/bus/tram/subway from there.

I think this would be better done more contextually rather then an overall city ordinance that way you can give neighborhoods more distinct characteristics rather then it just being overall. Dense urban cores, New hip transit influenced neighborhoods and sprawling suburbs all together.

That makes me think of another thing, I'd like to see neighborhoods that change characteristics maintain some of their old features. A lot of us cities have converted their old empty industrial buildings into commercial and residential lofts and maintain the original style. It's be cool if changing the land use didn't have to destroy the existing building it might have a chance of re purposing that building

Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK

I'd agree that I'm not a fan of random disasters, but I do think having the option is great to just watch the world burn from time to time.

Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK

Yeah, it's San Francisco, Chicago, San Francisco again, and Seattle.

You can see the Transamerica tower in San Francisco, and Chicago has a lot of recognizable buildings. Willis Tower, Smurfit Stone, Trump, the Art Institute.

Edit: I also think a game in that style would be awesome. Something that sort of feels more like you're watching over a simulation of the city then some god's eye view

Opals25 fucked around with this message at Jun 20, 2014 around 18:52

Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK


I would empty quote this if that was still a thing because this is amazing news.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Opals25
Jun 20, 2006

TOURISTS SPOTTED, TWELVE O'CLOCK

Goodpancakes posted:

A PDF on American sprawl. Houston number one for large metros. A lot of places in the south as well, like Tennessee.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/d...sprawl-2014.pdf

Houston isn't the worst, Atlanta is. Nashville, where I live, is second worst. I can't wait to move...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply