Slashdot Mirror
SimCity Trains Bad Urban Planners
An anonymous reader writes "The global eco tech blog Worldchanging has a post commenting on about how SimCity borks urban planner ideas of how cities really work in the real world." From the entry: "While some of Lobo & Schooler's complaints arise from the fact that SimCity is built as a game -- the "God Mode," for example -- most derive from inability to modify the underlying model, whether to include mixed-use development (the ground-floor commercial/upper-floor residential buildings which help to make dense urban environments livable), to vary the demand ratings for various services, to make pedestrian travel more acceptable, or to alter the efficiency and availability of renewable power generation."
(At least the original) Sim City was described by the developers as a toy, not a game, because you can't really win, but there are so many possibilities to play with it.
Yes, I'm nitpicking. But it's true.
I don't need a signature.
I am in a graduate planning program and I love playing SimCity. I don't think that the game has an effect on how I approach planning. I feel the exact opposite has occurred: I find myself hating aspects of the game that fail to reflect reality. The summary notes the lack of mixed use development. The game also fails in trip generation, physics, and connectivity. Despite its flaws, it's a fun diversion, so I play it.
I think that the "bad planners" that learn from SimCity might be those in muncipalities that do nothing but zoning; when a town relies on zoning without a comprehensive plan, design ordinance or any other form of "planning" you are left with the suburban sprawl and commercial strip development that plagues the American landscape. We need a revival of the City Beautiful movement, which some believe can be found in New Urbanism.