10 Things The “Cities: Skylines” Video Game Taught Us About Modern Urbanism

[Taffy.]

One of the things that architects, along with Urban Planners do is work on 'masterplan' schemes for city areas or even entire new cities. Here is an intriguing article by an architecture website which whilst acknowledging the game as excellent examines how well it tallies with the realities of urban design and development.

I was wondering what the players thought of these comparisons and whether you feel any of them could be implemented in a way that would improve the game? I found point '3. The Present is Now' particularly thought provoking as having historical precedent to push against when designing is what really brings a place to life and it reminded me that Totally Moo once said he would love to see a DLC that would allow a city to develop from historical beginnings through to modern day.

http://www.archdaily.com/619567/reb...s-cities-skylines-says-about-modern-urbanism/

 

[Shiggs]

Well, number 5, I have seen numerous complaints about that. No division of wealth classes ie low, middle, high wealth buildings/cims.

In my mind (of course I'm American), it should be the way simcity has always did it, it models reality much more closely. In a person from Finland's mind, this may not be the case however.


Also for 8, maybe have trees reduce noise pollution? Or for roads, have it vary depending on traffic density? I don't know, that might already happen but if it does its not pronounced enough.

 

[RyanX]

It's really hard to take the article seriously. I, personally, do not view the points the author made as some sort of life lessons that Colossal Order is trying to teach us, but rather the limitations of a small developer team that did not have the resources to model class division, different types and effects of polutions and historical buildings in the 1.0 version.

I am 99,9% sure that given the resources, the guys at CO would include things that would probably disagree with the article.

 

[Shiggs]

I mostly agree with you RyanX, but there are still underlying biases we all have subconsciously. For example your view of what a city is, might be just a little different than mine if we grew up in a different country. There's nothing wrong with that. Its more of an idea of what they placed their emphasis on compared to American, Maxis. They had a pretty big budget and plenty of resources and didn't include many of the things that CS does already. You couldn't even draw highways in that game, no pedestrian paths, and plenty of other shortfalls.

With all the success the game has had, hopefully some of it is reinvested for many years of patches and dlcs, and I hope you'll be right.

 

[RyanX]

I mostly agree with you RyanX, but there are still underlying biases we all have subconsciously. For example your view of what a city is, might be just a little different than mine if we grew up in a different country. There's nothing wrong with that. Its more of an idea of what they placed their emphasis on compared to American, Maxis. They had a pretty big budget and plenty of resources and didn't include many of the things that CS does already. You couldn't even draw highways in that game, no pedestrian paths, and plenty of other shortfalls.

With all the success the game has had, hopefully some of it is reinvested for many years of patches and dlcs, and I hope you'll be right.

The game that shall not be mentioned is not really a great example or a viable target to compare with Cities Skylines, since it failed in everything related to simulating a real life city, whether it was the scale, the transportation system, the rush hour or the constructing (or lack thereof) of infrastructure.

Saying that an american Maxis did not include highways in Sim City because there are no highways in america is so wrong on so many levels. Similarily saying that the cities in the game that shall not be mentioned were small because american cities are inherently small and compact would be an even bigger fallacy. No, the game that shall not be mentioned was designed to make city building feel fun, not real.

Subconscious biases or not, there are not that many ways one can design a city builder, barring the visual side. Arguing that there is no division of wealth in Europe or that CO somehow implies that all historical architecture is a burden just because these features are not included in the game is shortsighted, at least in my opinion.

Though I run the risk of sounding rude, perhaps ignorant, it is my personal belief that the author either completely missed the point and drew incorrect conclusions when there were none or fabricated a set of "life lessons" based on one game's shortcomings in an effort to bring readers to his article.

 

[charlesnew]

Well, number 5, I have seen numerous complaints about that. No division of wealth classes ie low, middle, high wealth buildings/cims.

In my mind (of course I'm American), it should be the way simcity has always did it, it models reality much more closely. In a person from Finland's mind, this may not be the case however.


Also for 8, maybe have trees reduce noise pollution? Or for roads, have it vary depending on traffic density? I don't know, that might already happen but if it does its not pronounced enough.

I also think that wealth needs to be more of a thing in the game. I like how the game divides people by education instead of wealth. Like how not educated people take blue collar jobs and more educated people get white collar jobs. But wealth in the game is almost non existent. Level 5 residents should have either no job or have some kind of job as a CEO or something for a big company, that means that they are almost useless for your city, and are probably best just to show off. Any uneducated level 5 residents wouldn't have a job, because, I mean, why work at a factory when your rich parents have given you millions already? Right? Another thing is that the higher the wealth, the higher chance and priority, (if your schools are full) they have at going to school. This basically means that lower wealth people can't go to school as often and are less likely to get a good job. There could also be a free schooling policy that really increases the maintenance cost for schools.

And also to answer your question at the end, yes noise pollution is already like that. It depends on traffic density and speed. Trees and buildings also help decrease noise pollution.

 

[Shiggs]

The game that shall not be mentioned is not really a great example or a viable target to compare with Cities Skylines, since it failed in everything related to simulating a real life city, whether it was the scale, the transportation system, the rush hour or the constructing (or lack thereof) of infrastructure.

Yes agreed, I did refer to the game we will not mention, but the article refers back to both the original and simcity 3000 as well. I read it as more of a general comparison to the franchise.

Saying that an american Maxis did not include highways in Sim City because there are no highways in america is so wrong on so many levels. Similarily saying that the cities in the game that shall not be mentioned were small because american cities are inherently small and compact would be an even bigger fallacy. No, the game that shall not be mentioned was designed to make city building feel fun, not real.

Subconscious biases or not, there are not that many ways one can design a city builder, barring the visual side. Arguing that there is no division of wealth in Europe or that CO somehow implies that all historical architecture is a burden just because these features are not included in the game is shortsighted, at least in my opinion.

I'm not saying any of that, and I don't think the author is either. Obviously America is full of huge sprawling cities littered with highways and there is a division of wealth in Europe. I shouldn't even need to say that. Only saying it is interesting where each company placed their emphasis. Maxis placed theirs on multiplayer and shiny graphics likely to try and attract the young American gamer. Other lesser features like the wealth division were deemed more important than highways, its a matter of priorities and design choices. CO had to make similar choices and likely placed a much higher priority on larger cities and so other things of lesser priority like multiplayer and 8000 tri building models for 1x1 gas stations had to be left out. They could have probably included division of wealth classes but deemed something else in the design process more important.

Though I run the risk of sounding rude, perhaps ignorant, it is my personal belief that the author either completely missed the point and drew incorrect conclusions when there were none or fabricated a set of "life lessons" based on one game's shortcomings in an effort to bring readers to his article.

I think you are taking it a little too seriously. I thought the article was pretty lighthearted, had some little jokes, and mostly uncontroversial except #5 maybe.

 

[RyanX]

I think you are taking it a little too seriously. I thought the article was pretty lighthearted, had some little jokes, and mostly uncontroversial except #5 maybe.

It's quite possible I am.

Regardless, I still can't get behind points #3 and #10 either, and try as it might, I can't agree with the author citing a video game in regards to future urban development.

 

[Potoroo]

"Colossal Order are being rightly rewarded with impressive sales and critical success, but it’s worth noting that Maxis’s SimCity series was so genre defining that Skylines owes it a great deal, right down to the default 9% tax rates. With the genre opened up so successfully, maybe it’s time for future games to start moving further from the conventions created by the 1990s, Californian viewpoint of Maxis and allow a much more open view of what cities could be."

The biggest single difference between Maxis/CO's vision of urban design and contemporary cities is mixed zoning. CO has unfortunately absorbed Maxis' Functionalism, which is at least half a century out of date.

Functionalism kills cities.

I don't mean it kills cities in the game sense but in reality it is almost always the worst possible approach to urban design. I say almost always because there are exceptions - things like toxic industries should be kept to themselves and away from other parts of the city (it's no coincidence that in my city the dangerous chemical storage facility is on an island in the city's river). But it kills cities by destroying their sense of liveliness. When people en masse get up and leave a major section of the city then it dies for a time (as when tens of thousands of people desert commercial or office districts to go home). When that part of the city has multiple uses then it is active - it is alive - around the clock. If CO genuinely want to take city builders into at least the latter half of the 20th century then it must embrace mixed zoning.

 

[Taffy.]

Functionalism kills cities.

I think you are absolutely right as to the effect functionalism has had on cities and the ability to mix zoning in Cities Skyline would be most welcome. But I think it is good that the opposite is a reality in game too. Functionalism was introduced to real cities for a purpose, primarily efficiency and the desire to encourage a particular type of development. And no doubt this would have had the desired effect for a time but as you rightly say it ultimately kills cities. They become sterile and lifeless.

I suppose the main thing the article demonstrates for me in creating an engaging city builder is that cities should be flawed...constantly. Utopias don't interest me and personally (in reality) I think they are a fallacy. Whatever solutions you introduce to an urban problem, even if they are acknowledged as correct on balance, should have consequences for some people and ramifications further down the line which require a new set of solutions. Unlike most games there should not be an perfect answer to any problem.

That's far easier said than done even for a big game development team of course and I imagine probably would not sit well with all gamers...it's just the sort of thing I'd hope to see someday.

 

[Myquandro]

There were certainly things mentioned that I think should be in the game, but also things that I think are most logical but are done differently by Maxis.

Just to give a bit of insight in my perspective as these can be very different all over the world. I'm a student in The Netherlands that travels a lot by public transportation (±100,000km/year), by car (±70,000km/year) and by bike (±5,000km/year)

History is something I'm missing and is a big part of city building in my opinion. Most of the cities have a center that can't be changed much as it's heritage and there are even height limitations here that are historical (No building can be higher then the main clocktower). Another thing I'm missing is class devision where high wealth cims have more advanced, bigger houses with solar panels, better cars, swimming pools, etc.

One of the things that I do see in Sim City that isn't realistic from my perspective is that wealthy people use less public transportation. That is just not how it is here. Public transportation is used by anyone whose destination is difficult to reach by car (city centers mainly) that is faster because of traffic jams (between big cities) or who's environmentally conscious and can make choice on that bases (mostly medium to high wealth). It's not something you use because you can't afford a car, because for a two or more member family it's cheaper to own a car then to travel by public transportation on average.

 

[Potoroo]

Whilst I would like some older architectural styles to give my cities a sense of history (and variety) I don't agree that it is necessarily a big part of city building. History is inherited but when you're starting from scratch you're building Almere not Amsterdam.

 

[charlesnew]

I agree with both of the comments above. As MyQuandro said, a history for your city would be really really cool. But as Potoroo said, we're basically building a more modern city that is new and only a recent one.

What would be nice is if a DLC sometime in the future came out where we could have a history to our city. Like we can chose an era to start the growth of our city. The timeline will go through the centuries/decades and into the future. it could have different unlocks and stuff as time flies by. It would also be nice if we could set an era where the timeline stops, and you just continue building your city without the timeline going farther than you want it to (you see, I'm not really into building futuristic cities, and like to focus on more modern or historical cities). It can also be so that historical buildings raises the happiness of its area. Demolishing them heavily decreases the happiness of the area. Demolishing a historical monument REALLY REALLY makes your people unhappy.

 

[Myquandro]

Just a thought but why does a cities history has to be in the past. Why can't the history be made by creating more futuristic buildings that will be build after a certain year. So you get current buildings and after 2035 you get more futuristic buildings and after 2055 even more futuristic.

 

[TotalyMoo]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing!

 

[TrentW]

One of the things that architects, along with Urban Planners do is work on 'masterplan' schemes for city areas or even entire new cities. Here is an intriguing article by an architecture website which whilst acknowledging the game as excellent examines how well it tallies with the realities of urban design and development.

I was wondering what the players thought of these comparisons and whether you feel any of them could be implemented in a way that would improve the game? I found point '3. The Present is Now' particularly thought provoking as having historical precedent to push against when designing is what really brings a place to life and it reminded me that Totally Moo once said he would love to see a DLC that would allow a city to develop from historical beginnings through to modern day.

http://www.archdaily.com/619567/reb...s-cities-skylines-says-about-modern-urbanism/

Agree with point 3 a lot.

I think the perfect city builder would basically be Cities: Skylines with the ability to choose a past year as a starting point - even if those years were limited maybe to only 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000 or something easily manageable like that - and then in addition to new buildings/transportation/roads unlocking based on population milestones, they would also unlock based on chronology. For example, highways may not unlock until you get past 1920 regardless of your population. Modern architectural styles won't start building until it is choronologically appropriate. This will immediately create a whole new range of challenges and decisions to be made such as 'Do I tear down this historic set of downtown blocks build a much needed freeway to dump traffic from the suburbs into the CBD?', and 'Back when this city was growing in 1910 I built a cargo port at my downtown waterfront, now it's 1980 and my downtown area is suffering from low desirability, should I turn that port into a waterfront entertainment district?'

To add to the effectiveness of this, it would also need a 'preserve as historic' type toggle button to manage what can upgrade and what can't. It would also be cool if as each building first appears, it has an "Established" date attached when you look at its info.

I think this would be a great idea for a DLC expansion pack.

On a separate but (kinda) related note....

How about the idea of shopfronts changing on existing commercial buildings? When a shop closes, the building isn't demolished. A new tenant moves in. Especially with a historical DLC, it would be great to see a historic shopping strip lined with 100 year old two-storey commercial buildings and see just the shopfronts change and evolve over time.

I was thinking about this the other night while sitting in a bar in Chapel St, Windsor (Melbourne) which is lined with funky shops, bars & restaurants in two-storey buildings circa 1880-1900. The second level of each is probably mostly unchanged from 120 years ago apart from a colourful paint job, but I was sitting there just picturing how the shopfronts themselves must have evolved over those years, how many different businesses have come & gone, how the styles of signage would have evolved, the types of businesses evolving from possibly a blacksmith to a cobbler to a shoe store to a music store and now a tattoo parlour... But all in the same building whose facade remains mostly unchanged since 1890.

This kind of thing would be great to see in a game too. Even regardless of the historical aspect, just seeing businesses move in & out of the same building rather than a new building having to replace the old one every time a business abandons would be a lot more realistic. But it would be an absolute must for a historical DLC to work or a 150 year old commercial building you preserve as historic would either have to be abandoned or still have a blacksmith operating out of it!

Chapel Street, Windsor has changed a lot, but the buildings themselves haven't.

 

[TrentW]

I agree with both of the comments above. As MyQuandro said, a history for your city would be really really cool. But as Potoroo said, we're basically building a more modern city that is new and only a recent one.

What would be nice is if a DLC sometime in the future came out where we could have a history to our city. Like we can chose an era to start the growth of our city. The timeline will go through the centuries/decades and into the future. it could have different unlocks and stuff as time flies by. It would also be nice if we could set an era where the timeline stops, and you just continue building your city without the timeline going farther than you want it to (you see, I'm not really into building futuristic cities, and like to focus on more modern or historical cities). It can also be so that historical buildings raises the happiness of its area. Demolishing them heavily decreases the happiness of the area. Demolishing a historical monument REALLY REALLY makes your people unhappy.

Yep! I didn't read this reply before I wrote mine a few minutes ago, so apologies for rehashing half of what you already suggested! But yes I wholeheartedly agree with you there

 

[Potoroo]

I agree with both of the comments above. As MyQuandro said, a history for your city would be really really cool. But as Potoroo said, we're basically building a more modern city that is new and only a recent one.

What would be nice is if a DLC sometime in the future came out where we could have a history to our city. Like we can chose an era to start the growth of our city. The timeline will go through the centuries/decades and into the future. it could have different unlocks and stuff as time flies by. It would also be nice if we could set an era where the timeline stops, and you just continue building your city without the timeline going farther than you want it to (you see, I'm not really into building futuristic cities, and like to focus on more modern or historical cities). It can also be so that historical buildings raises the happiness of its area. Demolishing them heavily decreases the happiness of the area. Demolishing a historical monument REALLY REALLY makes your people unhappy.

This is a good example of the potential of districts. We could assign architectural styles to districts or designate them as historic. That way you could end up with an "older" inner city and a "newer" suburbia, for instance.

 

[charlesnew]

Agree with point 3 a lot.

I think the perfect city builder would basically be Cities: Skylines with the ability to choose a past year as a starting point - even if those years were limited maybe to only 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000 or something easily manageable like that - and then in addition to new buildings/transportation/roads unlocking based on population milestones, they would also unlock based on chronology. For example, highways may not unlock until you get past 1920 regardless of your population. Modern architectural styles won't start building until it is choronologically appropriate. This will immediately create a whole new range of challenges and decisions to be made such as 'Do I tear down this historic set of downtown blocks build a much needed freeway to dump traffic from the suburbs into the CBD?', and 'Back when this city was growing in 1910 I built a cargo port at my downtown waterfront, now it's 1980 and my downtown area is suffering from low desirability, should I turn that port into a waterfront entertainment district?'

To add to the effectiveness of this, it would also need a 'preserve as historic' type toggle button to manage what can upgrade and what can't. It would also be cool if as each building first appears, it has an "Established" date attached when you look at its info.

I think this would be a great idea for a DLC expansion pack.

On a separate but (kinda) related note....

How about the idea of shopfronts changing on existing commercial buildings? When a shop closes, the building isn't demolished. A new tenant moves in. Especially with a historical DLC, it would be great to see a historic shopping strip lined with 100 year old two-storey commercial buildings and see just the shopfronts change and evolve over time.

I was thinking about this the other night while sitting in a bar in Chapel St, Windsor (Melbourne) which is lined with funky shops, bars & restaurants in two-storey buildings circa 1880-1900. The second level of each is probably mostly unchanged from 120 years ago apart from a colourful paint job, but I was sitting there just picturing how the shopfronts themselves must have evolved over those years, how many different businesses have come & gone, how the styles of signage would have evolved, the types of businesses evolving from possibly a blacksmith to a cobbler to a shoe store to a music store and now a tattoo parlour... But all in the same building whose facade remains mostly unchanged since 1890.

This kind of thing would be great to see in a game too. Even regardless of the historical aspect, just seeing businesses move in & out of the same building rather than a new building having to replace the old one every time a business abandons would be a lot more realistic. But it would be an absolute must for a historical DLC to work or a 150 year old commercial building you preserve as historic would either have to be abandoned or still have a blacksmith operating out of it!

View attachment 126967
Chapel Street, Windsor has changed a lot, but the buildings themselves haven't.

This. This is what we need. (and it's fine. You didn't really repeat what I said, but added to it).