Cities Skylines is fundamentally based on Neo-Liberal Urban Planning philosophies, it still can't escape the fact that the insanity of a 15 Minute City requires economic parasitism & tyranny.
Games, like AI, are beautiful because of the fact that they are designed to work only from base starting principles, and allow the data to result naturally. And the natural result of a 15 minute city is a dystopia that makes your feet hurt.
Ironically enough, Dodge is still relatively based. Ford has also started to realize that going all in on electric was a bad move, because they are walking back their electric fleet, returning old designs (like a V8 Mustang instead of Eco-boost). And of course switching to more hybrid designs since the Maverick is selling like its going out of style. Which sucks since I want one and they are still expensive due to demand.
or at least the late Mr. Toyada, I don’t know what his successor is like
Then there is me, playing the game completely ass-backward in a way that would make the Neo-Lib Planner have a stroke:
Anywhere that can be reached by mass transit can be reached by car, with only a handful of exceptions (and even with exceptions, you can get damn close).
Roads built to improve traffic flow rather than infuriate drivers into giving up and taking transit.
Well-funded police that aggressively enforce the law instead of coddling criminals.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be office drones.
Power provided by stable sources like coal and oil, to eventually be replaced by nuclear.
The main college funded and endorsed by the city is a Tech College.
All filthy hippies wanting their "15 minute city" are relegated to the district known locally as "The Hippie Ghetto" (whatever its official name is).
Add Victoria to that list for an econ lesson and you would have a well balanced Renaissance Man.....wait.
Depends on which ones you get though. I know there were some people complaining about the fact that the teaser for Cities Skylines 2 that drop the other day seemed "too car-centric", and upset that there were not as many options for creating a "walkable city."
Meanwhile, like I said: You get a bus stop, an in-district tram (for high-density districts), a metro/subway, and an intracity train when I am in a late game city. If that is not enough "walking" for you, I dont know what to tell you. Guess go live in the "walkable zone" with the Hippies, because the rest of the city will have 6-lane roads and highways connecting everything.
I know this is for humor, not an actual indictment of 15 minute cities, but to play devil's advocate anyway:
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
They're commie blocks, dude. They are the bare minimum of living arrangements decided by state entities. If you're going through life with literally nothing over your head during the night, than it might be an upgrade. But for the vast majority of people? It's a substantial downgrade.
In theory, having everything you need close by (including work) so you don't have to drive everywhere isn't a bad idea. In theory, it could ease the stress and time pressures of commuting and ease the financial pressures of owning and maintaining a car. In theory, it could help foster a strong sense of community identity.
I do not trust the globalist cunts to deliver this version of 15 minutes cities. They will of course be introducing the commie blocks you mention, with the bare minimum of living arrangements that keep the peasants oppressed and the elite rich and powerful.
But it's not a terrible idea if it's strictly voluntary and it's implemented by people who are intelligent and good.
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
True communism 15 minute city has never been tried.
Nah, I get what you're saying though.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
It's never voluntary, though. And it can't be if you're turning existing cities into "15 minute cities."
It's not that literal of a translation. It's a game, not a simulation.
That being said, you are going to have common problems, because of common threads. Each 15 minute city has to be built with specifically allocated supplies for a specific demand in each district. In order for districts to not be overwhelmed by demand, you'll need to segregate the districts. In order to segregate the districts, you'll need a police state to control movement.
I don't see why it needs strict movement control and state allocated resources. I see it - the ideal version at least - as having everything within 15 minutes to eliminate the need for most inter-district travel. It doesn't have to involve the sort of hard control that these cunts want to take. Incentivize it, make it logistically convenient, and let people decide for themselves. I think it'd provide a lot of benefits.
Just because criminals and tyrants want to implement a warped and twisted version of something, doesn't mean a good version of that thing is impossible to achieve if it's voluntary and realistic in scale. And if it's built fresh instead of rammed into existing cities.
Because it's not possible to have voluntary system in a 15 minute city that won't get hit with scarcity from people who are outside of the 15 minute zone.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires. The moment they do this, they will cause further disruptions of the highly ordered system, and create a cascading failure.
They have to be stopped, normally with significant threat of force, otherwise they will create shortages in places which were never meant to accommodate them.
And all of that assumes perfectly competent organization. In reality, shit will be so broken that people will have to seek out the resources of other districts. This will not only do all of the same things, but will also show the incompetency of the government, which will necessitate a violent response in order for them to maintain legitimacy.
It's not an option. It's not because bad people exist. It's because the policies asked for are impossible without a level of control that demands tyrannical coercion to protect and enforce those very policies.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what?
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city. It causes an inevitable chain reaction that means the city can't be supported as the district is organized, leading to a resulting need for more enforcement, leading to more population, movement, and financial control, leading to tyranny.
It's like having a "little" price control. The price controls are self-defeating without totalitarianism. There isn't another way.
What you want is Localism. People live in small communities that have what they want. You don't get that with mass urban planning.
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city.
Not if the purpose is literally just to put everything in walking distance so most people can choose to meet their needs locally. 100% adherence isn't required, there is no chain reaction if there isn't a perfect success rate. I don't know why you insist on assuming top-down control that grips tighter and tighter if there's any deviation from the plan. I've told you I'm talking purely about infrastructure and incentive, a voluntary system that uses urban planning to encourage trends, not enforce adherence.
Yes, it's trickier doing it with urban planning rather than in separate small communities, and probably the biggest hurdle is making sure people are able to be employed locally. There's no perfect answer to that, but the ability to work from home helps.
I'm just saying if it's voluntary and not authoritarian, there are many potential benefits and few meaningful downsides. It would be an experiment worth trying if enough people were on board and enough resources were available. That's all hypothetical of course, but it's not an inherently awful concept.
Made possible by horrible, state-run, shadow-banking & market manipulating police state
I mean you didn't really have to play a simulator to come up with this conclusion, the USSR already accomplished this during it's time, basically by building blocks of buildings close to wherever 99% of its residents worked, it's either in walking distance or just buss picks up all of the workers and brings them to and from work, that's why you have all those ghosttowns now in northern Russia, the mines dried out, not work left for the people, so they moved out and the buildings are now deserted.
Honestly, I'd already come to the conclusion that there are a litany of government and corporate forces that are standing to make a killing off of killing, and so will do precisely that. And they aren't even the weapon's manufacturers.
Cities Skylines is fundamentally based on Neo-Liberal Urban Planning philosophies, it still can't escape the fact that the insanity of a 15 Minute City requires economic parasitism & tyranny.
Games, like AI, are beautiful because of the fact that they are designed to work only from base starting principles, and allow the data to result naturally. And the natural result of a 15 minute city is a dystopia that makes your feet hurt.
The comment section is decidedly NOT based. Some of them are pretty funny though.
Ironically enough, Dodge is still relatively based. Ford has also started to realize that going all in on electric was a bad move, because they are walking back their electric fleet, returning old designs (like a V8 Mustang instead of Eco-boost). And of course switching to more hybrid designs since the Maverick is selling like its going out of style. Which sucks since I want one and they are still expensive due to demand.
If its related to Toyota, their chief engineer was recently saying how the world and the tech is not yet ready for electric cars and they should focus on more traditional and hybrid designs until the tech improves.
shit doesn't even work in the cold, which most of the country gets half the year.
Kinda like the oild companies became energy companies.
90% of most cars isn't the motor, though. The car companies will be building largely the same thing. I don't think they will mind, immediately.
I'm pretty sure that is a joke.
Then there is me, playing the game completely ass-backward in a way that would make the Neo-Lib Planner have a stroke:
Anywhere that can be reached by mass transit can be reached by car, with only a handful of exceptions (and even with exceptions, you can get damn close).
Roads built to improve traffic flow rather than infuriate drivers into giving up and taking transit.
Well-funded police that aggressively enforce the law instead of coddling criminals.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be office drones.
Power provided by stable sources like coal and oil, to eventually be replaced by nuclear.
The main college funded and endorsed by the city is a Tech College.
All filthy hippies wanting their "15 minute city" are relegated to the district known locally as "The Hippie Ghetto" (whatever its official name is).
Etc.
I feel like if our country was run by people who play Cities Skylines or Hearts of Iron religiously, we'd all be better off.
Add Victoria to that list for an econ lesson and you would have a well balanced Renaissance Man.....wait.
Depends on which ones you get though. I know there were some people complaining about the fact that the teaser for Cities Skylines 2 that drop the other day seemed "too car-centric", and upset that there were not as many options for creating a "walkable city."
Meanwhile, like I said: You get a bus stop, an in-district tram (for high-density districts), a metro/subway, and an intracity train when I am in a late game city. If that is not enough "walking" for you, I dont know what to tell you. Guess go live in the "walkable zone" with the Hippies, because the rest of the city will have 6-lane roads and highways connecting everything.
I used to do this in like SimCity 2k or something. Subways only. All the medium and high wealth sims hate it.
I know this is for humor, not an actual indictment of 15 minute cities, but to play devil's advocate anyway:
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
They're commie blocks, dude. They are the bare minimum of living arrangements decided by state entities. If you're going through life with literally nothing over your head during the night, than it might be an upgrade. But for the vast majority of people? It's a substantial downgrade.
In theory, having everything you need close by (including work) so you don't have to drive everywhere isn't a bad idea. In theory, it could ease the stress and time pressures of commuting and ease the financial pressures of owning and maintaining a car. In theory, it could help foster a strong sense of community identity.
I do not trust the globalist cunts to deliver this version of 15 minutes cities. They will of course be introducing the commie blocks you mention, with the bare minimum of living arrangements that keep the peasants oppressed and the elite rich and powerful.
But it's not a terrible idea if it's strictly voluntary and it's implemented by people who are intelligent and good.
True
communism15 minute city has never been tried.Nah, I get what you're saying though.
It's never voluntary, though. And it can't be if you're turning existing cities into "15 minute cities."
No, they would need to be built from the ground up and we all know these fucks can't or don't want to build anything, only subvert and destroy.
It's not that literal of a translation. It's a game, not a simulation.
That being said, you are going to have common problems, because of common threads. Each 15 minute city has to be built with specifically allocated supplies for a specific demand in each district. In order for districts to not be overwhelmed by demand, you'll need to segregate the districts. In order to segregate the districts, you'll need a police state to control movement.
I don't see why it needs strict movement control and state allocated resources. I see it - the ideal version at least - as having everything within 15 minutes to eliminate the need for most inter-district travel. It doesn't have to involve the sort of hard control that these cunts want to take. Incentivize it, make it logistically convenient, and let people decide for themselves. I think it'd provide a lot of benefits.
Just because criminals and tyrants want to implement a warped and twisted version of something, doesn't mean a good version of that thing is impossible to achieve if it's voluntary and realistic in scale. And if it's built fresh instead of rammed into existing cities.
Because it's not possible to have voluntary system in a 15 minute city that won't get hit with scarcity from people who are outside of the 15 minute zone.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires. The moment they do this, they will cause further disruptions of the highly ordered system, and create a cascading failure.
They have to be stopped, normally with significant threat of force, otherwise they will create shortages in places which were never meant to accommodate them.
And all of that assumes perfectly competent organization. In reality, shit will be so broken that people will have to seek out the resources of other districts. This will not only do all of the same things, but will also show the incompetency of the government, which will necessitate a violent response in order for them to maintain legitimacy.
It's not possible to have movement control without tyranny. It's not possible to have resource allocation without tyranny. It's not possible to have price controls without tyranny.
It's not an option. It's not because bad people exist. It's because the policies asked for are impossible without a level of control that demands tyrannical coercion to protect and enforce those very policies.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city. It causes an inevitable chain reaction that means the city can't be supported as the district is organized, leading to a resulting need for more enforcement, leading to more population, movement, and financial control, leading to tyranny.
It's like having a "little" price control. The price controls are self-defeating without totalitarianism. There isn't another way.
What you want is Localism. People live in small communities that have what they want. You don't get that with mass urban planning.
Not if the purpose is literally just to put everything in walking distance so most people can choose to meet their needs locally. 100% adherence isn't required, there is no chain reaction if there isn't a perfect success rate. I don't know why you insist on assuming top-down control that grips tighter and tighter if there's any deviation from the plan. I've told you I'm talking purely about infrastructure and incentive, a voluntary system that uses urban planning to encourage trends, not enforce adherence.
Yes, it's trickier doing it with urban planning rather than in separate small communities, and probably the biggest hurdle is making sure people are able to be employed locally. There's no perfect answer to that, but the ability to work from home helps.
I'm just saying if it's voluntary and not authoritarian, there are many potential benefits and few meaningful downsides. It would be an experiment worth trying if enough people were on board and enough resources were available. That's all hypothetical of course, but it's not an inherently awful concept.
I mean you didn't really have to play a simulator to come up with this conclusion, the USSR already accomplished this during it's time, basically by building blocks of buildings close to wherever 99% of its residents worked, it's either in walking distance or just buss picks up all of the workers and brings them to and from work, that's why you have all those ghosttowns now in northern Russia, the mines dried out, not work left for the people, so they moved out and the buildings are now deserted.
not related but spiffs distopian nightmare here really makes you think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlp1cebFxEM
Honestly, I'd already come to the conclusion that there are a litany of government and corporate forces that are standing to make a killing off of killing, and so will do precisely that. And they aren't even the weapon's manufacturers.