.png){kind=avatar}
Because citizens complain that the land value is too low? The area has many parks, and as you can see, accessibility is high:
Land value
- Thread starter Seny Androide
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Leisure isn't the only thing that affects land value. Pollution, abandoned/burned buildings and noise also affects it
I doubt that it is pollution, the industry is far from this area, the sound I not see any building that is close with headphones that indicate that produces noise. Burned buildings not usually have a lot, the area is well covered. By the way, I didn't know this of the burned buildings, the game only tells me that the only thing to fix it is put parks nearby to increase the land value.
I believe that also having services nearby increases land value and noise also comes from traffic and commercial buildings.
True.
Further information: Noise pollution can be present in a pestering way, even when there is no "headphone"-symbol. Check the info-tab for your noise-pollution. Further ensure, that you have the services needed nearby, than land value will be high enough.
Roads are a source of noise pollution as well (Large highway without barriers for example).
Generally I have noticed that land value increases when building upgrade - upgraded building will increase the surrounding land value, so make sure services are covered, etc. It also doesn't happen quickly, but over time.
Generally I have noticed that land value increases when building upgrade - upgraded building will increase the surrounding land value, so make sure services are covered, etc. It also doesn't happen quickly, but over time.
Water pumps produce noise, which is somewhat detrimental to land value. Small lots have an intrinsically lower value than larger ones.
In case of those buildings, you probably get the "edge effect". Parks themselves have lower land value than the surroundings, and in unbuilt space, land value takes a nosedive, which means it is always much more difficult to keep the land value of buildings next to free areas up.
So you have a combination of effects here: edge effect. small tiles, and maybe the pumps, which all adds up. You could try and place a bus stop nearby.
In case of those buildings, you probably get the "edge effect". Parks themselves have lower land value than the surroundings, and in unbuilt space, land value takes a nosedive, which means it is always much more difficult to keep the land value of buildings next to free areas up.
So you have a combination of effects here: edge effect. small tiles, and maybe the pumps, which all adds up. You could try and place a bus stop nearby.
I don't know that of pumps water, and commercial areas too! Although anyway this is a game of cities, stores must be present near the houses, like any city, it is rare that citizens complain of noise, normal, they are in a city!
Putting roads with decor could solve much of the problem, no?
Putting roads with decor could solve much of the problem, no?
You can have commercial areas and residential but you have to offset the noise, so using tree lined roads or other buffer related things. I sometimes will use offices as a buffer for commercial zones as they have no noise requirements so they don't care but you can then put residential near by. Even in a city though living near commercial zones is noisy though and most people would prefer not to live near them if they can help it
My highest land value is $82 - $84 thus far
This has risen as my population has risen
All the things that make cims happy (as far as I can tell) will increase land value = services, parks, buses (I don't know about the metro I never use it)
Things that prevent/slow down/hinder land value from rising = noise, roads, undeveloped areas, different zone sizes*, pollution, lack of services
In the OP picture one reason for low land value is
I don't see tree lined streets. Trees reduce noise and cims like that
It looks like there are some fast/wide streets? (Hard to tell) Cims don't like fast streets in their hood as it creates more noise
I'm guessing those are low density buildings? Low density & high land value are not a winning combination. I also think I see a house on a 4x4 zoned area then next door is a starter home on a 3x3 area next to a shack on a 2x2 area then an apartment building on a 4x4 zoned area? All of that equals low land value. Having zoned areas of the same size/type will help to increase land value.
Greyhampster is correct
Myquandro is correct
Arandur87 is correct
Stuaz is correct
Turjan is correct
Seny it is land value not livability. Yes people in cities around the world will live near commercial areas however those areas will not be as valuable as non commercial areas will be, areas in a city with a nice view, next to schools and parks etc. I know valuable is a relative term as land value in most cities is extremely high/expensive compared to the rest of the country however within most cities the areas that are quieter are more cherished by people and therefore more valued; meaning people will pay more for them.
This has risen as my population has risen
All the things that make cims happy (as far as I can tell) will increase land value = services, parks, buses (I don't know about the metro I never use it)
Things that prevent/slow down/hinder land value from rising = noise, roads, undeveloped areas, different zone sizes*, pollution, lack of services
In the OP picture one reason for low land value is
I don't see tree lined streets. Trees reduce noise and cims like that
It looks like there are some fast/wide streets? (Hard to tell) Cims don't like fast streets in their hood as it creates more noise
I'm guessing those are low density buildings? Low density & high land value are not a winning combination. I also think I see a house on a 4x4 zoned area then next door is a starter home on a 3x3 area next to a shack on a 2x2 area then an apartment building on a 4x4 zoned area? All of that equals low land value. Having zoned areas of the same size/type will help to increase land value.
Greyhampster is correct
Myquandro is correct
Arandur87 is correct
Stuaz is correct
Turjan is correct
Seny it is land value not livability. Yes people in cities around the world will live near commercial areas however those areas will not be as valuable as non commercial areas will be, areas in a city with a nice view, next to schools and parks etc. I know valuable is a relative term as land value in most cities is extremely high/expensive compared to the rest of the country however within most cities the areas that are quieter are more cherished by people and therefore more valued; meaning people will pay more for them.
Speaking of land value: I think the presence of water should slightly increase it as well, in a certain radius from the river bank or lake shore (think of a view to a gorgeous lake, and the various leisure time activities).
Unless the water is polluted, of course...
Unless the water is polluted, of course...
Thanks for the info! Different zones sizes? The size of the zones has something to do? :O
That sounds pretty good. I have to admit that I don't care that much for land value, as I want to keep a certain variability in the look of the city, so I don't really push this. The problem the OP has is more or less that he has lots of factors that push land value, otherwise the building wouldn't have got to this stage, but he also has factors that drag some buildings down, and you mentioned pretty much all of those.
I don't think this is true. Actually, I have a much easier time to get the value up in low density areas. Most of my high value areas are low density. This is basically my starting area of the city:
While most of the land is very valuable, you can see that land near the river and at the edges struggles. This pretty much matches the image in the OP. Larger buildings reach into the valuable area, but small ones stay in the mediocre area. Large roads pull down the value, and something like a railway station is even worse in this reagard., even though you can compensate for this to some extent. Parks also have some devaluing effect on buildings that touch them, even if they raise land value for the district. Edges are by far the worst. Not even the agricultural area on the left comes close.
"While most of the land is very valuable, you can see that land near the river and at the edges struggles."
And this I guess would be another reason to consider my suggestion above, as it would even out things at river/lake edges, in a realistic way.
And this I guess would be another reason to consider my suggestion above, as it would even out things at river/lake edges, in a realistic way.
To clarify, the presence of water increasing land values is just a feature I would like to see added in the game... so it's not currently in, and you can ignore my posts here.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
Pollution in the river is a health problem, as the pollution seeps into the soil next to it and makes people in those houses sick.
Regarding land value and the river: You cannot really do much. Parks don't help, they even make things worse there. Look at the killer combination of river edge and the "botanic garden" park at the right side of my pic.
Just dezone the small lots that have problems and upgrade your roads to some with trees.
Sorry, I meant that I haven't a polluted river, in the picture you can see clean water, I have the treatment plants that handle filter the water.
Ok, I did the roads with trees. So parks are a problem? Wow, this shouldn't happen, CO should go to fix this problem.
Bad placement of parks is aproblem. Don't place them too close to each other, and don't place them near the edge or river. Or just live with the low land value in their direct vicinity.