>> So, to be brutally clear, land value actually has no affect on building heights at all. The only thing land value affects right now is simply whether or not a high density building will build, or not. How high said building gets is all to do with density and demand.
> Got it. If an area has high density lots but no gov'n buildings and high demand, they will grow a tad taller due to pre-existing density.
Actually, high density won't grow at all if there are no gov buildings
nearby, regardless of demand. You'll still have medium and low density
buildings grow on the high density lots.
>> Well, even right now, the high density lots in the middle of suburbia will slowly feed on themselves and grow, especially with a heavy pair of government lots nearby. But regarding population migration I'm not really sure how to express that visually unless I add support for abandoned buildings. I mean, right now, why do you care whether the skyscrapers are filled with new people or people moving from lower density areas - given Synekism's UI is as capable as a command prompt?
> Well, I don't really care who lives in the buildings, I'm just talking strategic lot placement here. Big building next to small building will eventually encompass small building (just look at Coruscant). There is an alternative to introducing dilapidated buildings, as it was never really an issue. Instead of the buildings going to ruin, they'll just grow smaller as people move out, much like the reverse in high density areas. It shouldn't take long, it'll give the mayor visual knowledge of which areas need restructuring and will form the basis of the migration system, which plugs into another thread. I'll talk about ideas in a moment.
I'm not entirely comfortable shrinking buildings in general. How would
that even look like when buildings move beyond boxes and start looking
like, well, buildings? I would much rather have buildings go empty
than have them shrink.
>> Sorry, you might need to elaborate this a bit further. Do you mean you wish land value should not only be generated by gov lots but also normal lots and so spread without more gov lots?
> I do suppose this part was confusing. What I meant is that what if gov'n reach was not only defined by density, but also by demand? If there is strong demand and there is space for building high density lots within the reach of the gov'n, it should be that the reach of the gov'n is dictated by how far the buildings it does reach are. This way, both the gov'n buildings and the demander buildings would grow slowly, and the gov'n reach would slowly stretch, until a maximum point defined by lot and building size of the gov'n building, to prevent an entire city powered by one massive gov'n building, like City 17, or the city in Mirror's Edge. Hope this helps.
To make sure I understand: what you're saying is that gov buildings'
ranges should be affected by demand up to a maximum range? If so, it
sounds plausible and I'll keep it in mind. My preference, however, is
to skip two complexities up and implement gov building ranges that can
grow nonuniformly. So, if you place a gov building at the very edge of
a zone it will try to use the wasted "range" that goes outward from
the zone and extend its reach inside the zone. Obviously there will be
a penalty for the extra raw distance from the gov lot but you won't
have all the range covering empty land completely wasted. How does
> I like these discussions. Now there is much more information that we could use to create beginner's guides on the wiki (or not, up to you).
The reason I didn't make any guides and the same reason I would advise
one not to spend any time on such guides is that everything is too
much up in the air right now. Things can change drastically.
> It's also the first time I've seen you use "Yelmond." Curious.
Sorry...I forgot to change the Send-From address to the Synekism one.
Yelmond is just the personal nickname I use sometimes. Please ignore.
> Whoops. forgot about the migration system. Ok, let's see. One way this could be done is by using a concept present in Synekism's unnamed rival and proposed by a separate thread: different demand for different density. If I take my giant building and suburbia example, let's say that there is no demand for medium density, little for low and strong demand for high density residential. If the skyscraper is the only one in the area, a lot of people should be willing to move to the giant building. Now, low density doesn't dilapidated, medium density a little, down to low density levels, but high density can get really screwed. So the skyscraper enlarges itself to accommodate the large amount of people now willing to fill it's apartments. This doesn't satisfy demand, however, so you construct a separate part of the city, one with lots of high density buildings. This requires demand to be calculated area by area, but also to be interconnected, good luck with that. The people move out to the better area, leaving the sad skyscraper with no demand for it's current area. The skyscraper shrinks. Once suburbia and the other part of the city fill up, the cycles repeats itself. It may seems silly, but it would help the planning of the city. Let's say that an industrial area is built nearby suburbia, so that some workers stay and the building doesn't go completely broke.
Demand is probably too broad of a term. I see demand as simply the
number of people that want to do X in your city, whether the X is work
or live. Splitting demand per-density is not necessary in my opinion.
Maybe way down the road I might split it by demographic (say age group
or family size), but grouping demand by density seems too artificial.
That said, I think what you are saying can be achieved simply via
regional desirability. Highly desirable areas will draw a larger
portion of the overall demand than undesirable areas. This way, you
can control which areas get what ratio of the overall demand by using
gov buildings and other "services". Symmetrically, when demand is in
the negative, people in the lowest desirability areas will leave your
city first. This is also where migration might be viable, especially
when demand is close to 0. People will start moving from low
desirability ares to higher ones as they acquire the financial means