« using development charges as a transit funding mechanism | Main | streetcar in atlanta: cool, but is it useful? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Apparently they didn't make any measurements of actual real-world cities, otherwise they might have found a saner model for them to present in the game and might have changed people's views on cities and suburbia, including their own.

Daniel Howard

I for one wouldn't mind the opportunity to play a city simulator game with accurately-scaled parking. :)


It's a game, ....game! ...(sigh) ....GAME!

Actual, real-life city planners muck around with this to ESCAPE from reality.

Yes it is a fairyland. Don’t know where the idea came from that this is, or should be, an educational tool; or that it has political significance ("greenwash"?). Unsure where you're coming from on this, Jarrett.


EN57, games, like movies, TV or other interactions, shape and influence our thinking.
In this case, it distorts the effects of car-based urbanisation and makes players think automobile based transport is far more benign than the reality. Yes, it's a game - but it's a simulation game, not a purely fictional one, and will be seen as 'educational' as well as fun or a diversion.
I think it's pretty clear where Jarrett is coming from.

Eric Orozco

Yep. No one told me going into urban design that half my life was going to be designing parking lots. This is why transit oriented development (where the parking mins are typically flipped to parking maximums) is a GREAT - if not our only - opportunity to design affordable housing development urbanistically.

This land use factor is the primary barrier to building densely. As soon as you require a parking structure to pull your development off, you've just killed any element of affordability (you definitely tank it putting it underground). So you always need to then subsidize the project somehow if you want urbanism. Then when you find, say, tax credits for the project, it doesn't help when you're sacked with the state requirement to provide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The net effect is that you simply can't build above 14 dwelling units per gross acre, at least for affordable housing. Above that you have to heavily subsidize parking.

What I would like to see is an analysis mapping areas in the city where transit service is of sufficient quality to argue for lifting or dramatically loosening parking minimums. What you would have then is a map of the city where you can nurture urbanism and encourage affordable housing development.


@EN57 -- It may be a "game", but the very name of the game poses it as a "simulation", thus ostensibly being linked as closely as reasonable to real life analogues. Look to the field of flight simulator computer games, which, although "games", have spent decades honing the verisimilitude of the experience.

The interview linked -- as with nearly all press on the new SimCity -- emphasizes the amount of real-world research the designer put into it: a library of urban planning texts, documentaries on urbanization, poring over google maps and bing to understand the "real life" patterns.

If you present a *simulation* and gush over the amount of research put in to reflecting the real world subject matter, can you really turn around and brush off all criticism as, "But, hey, it's just a 'game', man."


The best walkable city simulator remains Caesar III. Streets are definitely pedestrian-friendly, and the insulae do not even have chariot parking minimums.


It is just a game.

But it says "sim" on the box...

I guess there might be some city planning departments somewhere out there, using this to model outcomes for their real-life cities, also making contingencies for UFO or Godzilla attacks.

Like the sound of Ceasar III - might be fun.


I guess developing two different city models would be too much overhead, but otherwise I would suggest them adding a realism mode as an option in offline mode (obviously you couldn't use different models on the shared servers). Or maybe open up the APIs so that third-parties could build a mod.

I would love to have a realistic simulator built by a top-tier game company.


And flight simulator doesn't require you to spend years getting a pilot's license. Such lies!

Miles Bader

Actually the first thing I noticed about that screen shot was the enormous roads... It looks pretty much like the mega-depressing silicon-valley model of development. From what I've read in various reviews, the new simcity actually enforces this too, linking road-size to development.


And that's without parking lots...

Did the developers do that intentionally, or are they simply so entrenched in the suburban-American mindset that nothing else occurred to them? TT


I remember going through incredible contortions trying to build a city in Sim City 2000 with no cars. Although such carless cities exist in the real world, your zoned/electrified/watered land will stay undeveloped unless it's near a road in that stupid game.

And it's really hard to provide surface rail when the train station has to be so big, it crowds out the roads that are required for development.

It should be called Sim Suburb.


A video game isn't 100% realistic when compared to the real world? Light your torches, I'm gonna burn this mother down and pee-pee on the ashes.

Joe Busman

On a positive note, many SimCity players may be young and interested in city planning or become city planning, and if they are used to beautiful cities without large parking lots and garages, then they would be inclined to design cities that match their expectations and minimize parking lots and garages. Also, this is a game and it's designed to be pleasing, so it goes to show you that a pleasing city lacks parking lots and garages, just as a pleasing avatar lacks facial defects and scars. The virtual world points to what people want not what people must endure in their daily real lives. So it's a good thing that a beautiful SimCity magically makes ugly parking lots disappear just as avatar programs magically makes physical shortcomings disappear in people.


Omitting parking points out an issue. Underground is probably prohibitively expensive. In general if you ask a citizen of the urban world what pisses them off the most, it might be traffic, or parking, or similar where someone is essentially transporting themselves from one location to another and needs a spot to park. The answer is public transport. Park outside the vicinity then take a tram/subway etc to get to the destination. This answer pisses people off because they want to drive with their own car, find the closest spot to the front door then drive away. As far as I know there is no urban solution to this without infuriating traffic and a bunch of cranky people. Park&ride might be a solution they have to put up with. SimCity could add a variable in the game showing lack of parking as an issue needing to be addressed, but we here in RL haven't figured that one out yet ourselves yet.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...