Zoning for Phase Two

Here's the first cut at zoning the new sim. The goal is to show folks how I'd like to divide up the land for sales both outside and inside of the city walls. Most lots are 1024 m^2 although I put in a few 512 m^2 lots, where space was tight. These spaces can be divided as small as 512 m^2 and joined to be as large as 8192 m^2, although I would like to propose new minimum and maximums of 128 m^2 and 3072 m^2 for reasons I'll discuss later.

The green dashes are unpaved streets and the purple lines are paved streets. I laid out the extended portions of the city based on the slope, creating streets that either meander down the steep sections or follow a constant elevation. All lots are laid out such that they touch a road or street. Additionally, all lots are shaped irregularly to keep with the organic theme of the city.

In order to increase coverage of land for sale, we're going to have to move the casino into the NE corner of the walled city and sell a good portion of land there too. Currently, I've zoned about 55% of the sim, about 20% below the goal. Once we have a chance to log into SL and optimize the city, street, and lot layout, we should be able to hit 65%. Because of this, we might have to raise the price of owning land by 10% to cover overhead costs (a 512 m^2 lot would rise from US$2.50 to US$2.75). We'll know after the city is zoned.

Everything in the image is approximate and some of the streets in the city are in the South East are missing. This is just to give a feel for the layout.

~Ulrika~

That was a big picture. I'll resize it next time. (Edit: Resized.)

I'm suggesting a cap on land, down from 8192 m^2 to prevent large empty lots that exist only to supply prims to a single structure. I'd like to strive to keep the density high, to maintain the look of an integrated city. Inside the city, I think we should sell lots as small as 128 m^2 (a single fachwerk) but no larger than 512 m^2.

What do you think?

Also, I'm going to take a day off from SL tomorrow just to catch up on some things around the house. I'll be back on Thursday.

~Ulrika~

Whew! That's a lot of work you've done, Ulrika. Thank you! Overall, I'm in complete agreement with the concept and direction; in fact, in some ways I'd go further. But, here's a point-by-point.

1. I agree with the proposed minimums and maximums. Although I feel that the minimum and the maximum serve 2 different purposes. I like the minimum because I strongly support selling land in the city, where, people should be able to buy just one house. I like the maximum, not because of the lot size per se, but as a cap to the amount of land any one person can hold, as that influences the nature of the city government. Even holding on to one person/one vote, smaller maximum holdings mean ultimately more participants.

2. Selling land inside the walls. I'll go out on a limb here. I feel that almost all the land, including the land inside the city walls, should be sold, subject to the restrictive covenent which Ulrika has proposed. Not sold would be the Platz and other open areas and streets. Also not sold would be the government building (the Senate; any others deemed necessary). And, also not sold is the casino (more on that). Everything else is sold, including the church and the museum. But, remember, all sales in the sim are technically to groups. (We can explain that further if that's confusing). The museum and the church can be sold to groups dedicated to their preservation and operation, but also who will devise means for supporting their presence here. They should not be "land-tax" free. (We very much need to arrive at a term for our version of "tier".

3. The land sold in the city walls would be sold as smaller, house-sized lots, with house, and with restrictions for external modification of such house. In that house, however, a person could live, and also, set up shop and sell things, using approved Neualtenburg vendors. Sales tax would be collected by those vendors and remitted to the city finance avatar, currently Uma.

4. The casino would remain a city owned and operated business, since much of the hoped for revenue which would allow the city to grow, prosper, and ultimately lower the monthly tier for participants would generate from the casino. I feel that the casino SHOULD NOT be placed in the proposed new location, behind the hill. It should remain in its current, visibly prominent, visible from the Platz, location. It should be snuggled up into the corner of the sim more, there is wasted space along its north and west edges. But it must be in a visibly prominent location such that visitors arriving at the telehub, now loacted in the center of the Platz, can see it immediately.

5. The casino also provides a purpose for the bridge. I propose that the bridge be modified somewhat to connect more organically with the casino. If the casino is re-located, then the bridge should be eliminated, or else completely re-thought.

6. The roads and lots across the landscape are wonderful. There is a danger that some lots may have limited usefulness depending on the building rules which we impose, because of the steepness of the land they're on. But, both the lots and the rules can be tweaked.

The roads themselves, I feel, must relate to the fact that the edge of the sim is an absolute boundary. What I mean is that I see no point in a road which pretends that it goes on to somewhere else, across the boundary. Best example is probably the paved road proposed in the south east corner leading from the main gate. Outside the gate, the paved area should be a kind of entry area, maybe a place for a second telehub. But not a road off the edge.

That said, land that's called a "right of way" may be appropriate here, should we acquire a second sim some day. A "right of way" is land owned by either the city or by the individual landowner, but which the city has a right to re-possess should it be needed for a road to another, as yet unused, location.

Other roads going to the edge can end in little "cul-de-sac"'s at the sim edge. I've thought that it might be rather nice to place a low rough fieldstone wall all along the boundaries of the sim not already edged by the city walls.

Enough out of me. I'm sure to have plenty more.


Sudane

Wow, parcelling those plots out weren't easy...

Sudane, I agree with all your comments. I think that the Casino should be as near the telehub as possible. Also, while "roads" are generally a good idea - so plots are not "too near" to each other - roads "leading to nowhere" are a bit pointless, unless near the edges of the sim we don't use them as "roads" but rather as a place to plant some trees or something, and later - with eventual future sims available - we can extend the roads to neighbour sims...

I started on a few in the SE corner, just to see how it would work. Its pretty stairghtforward in the open areas. It's in the city itself where it will be extremely difficult, cause the property lines are under the pavement, and under the houses.

Sudane

Exactly.

One of the main thrusts of this project is to create a themed sim that unites private land, which is owned by individuals and controlled by covenant, and public land, which is owned by all and administered by the government. We should apply the mode of ownership (private or public), which provides the maximum benefit to the city.

For instance, there is a benefit to creating covenants and selling plots of land outside the city. The lots are empty. It provides revenue, citizens, and spreads the work over many people. Similarly, there is a benefit to keeping the bridge as community property. It is immutable, should not be placed at risk, and is used by all citizens.

For land and structures that are between a bridge and a plot of open land, we should decide which is private or public simply by asking which mode of ownership provides the greatest benefit.

In the case of the church, I see no benefit in privatizing it. It is the dominant city structure and thus a critical piece of architecture. If an individual were to own that land, how would we restrict their modification of the structure (aside from trust)? What if we wanted to upgrade this critical piece of architecture (reduce prims or change the roof)? Will we really find someone who wants to pay us to maintain our church? Do we really want to hand something as controversial as religion in SL over to a single citizen or will they have no say in what services can be held in the church when?

I could make a similar argument for the museum as well. If it's ever completed, I imagine it will be a critical piece of architecture. What if we sell the land and the building which goes up doesn't meet our specifications? Do we demand it be razed until the owner gets it correct? Do we instead provide the infrastructure before selling it and then expect them to pay us to maintain the museum? How will their ownership affect what art is displayed?

I hold the view that there are some things that work well private and there are some things that work well public. We shouldn't force a mode of ownership unless there is a clear benefit. For all things in between, we should discuss it.


Exactly.

I moved the casino (labeled "C" in the image) to a spot directly off the town square. I think this is a good compromise between placing it in a visible location and keeping it within the walled city.

I moved it into the walled city for a few reasons.

1. I'd like to keep all city-owned assets in the center of the walled city. It feels out-of-balance from a city-design perspective to place a solitary city-owned structure outside of the walls.
   
2. The casino is way too big. The overhead cost of the land will most likely outstrip any return seen by the casino. We need to shrink its footprint, building up instead of out. I'm thinking an impressive 3-story fachwerk.
   
3. The top of the hill by the bridge is prime real estate (flat and high). I want to avoid consuming it with a city structure.
   

What do you think?

The bridge is an independent architectural element which serves the purpose of bridging the small valley and connecting the city to its modern theme. The dramatic main support is illusory to the spires of the church, yet provides a tension as if the structure is pulling back and away from the city. To me it's a critical piece of architecture that exemplifies the unique advantages of city-owned structures, casino or no.

All the roads run parallel to lines of equal elevation. Likewise, I tried to create the lots to be long and thin (in steep areas) in the direction of equal elevation. As long as folks stick to stone foundations (no stilts) to keep the homes level, it should work out.

Agreed. I modified the roads to end in cul-de-sacs.

This version of the map reflects more accurately the layout of roads within the city. We are up to about 60% of the land zoned. I think we should hit about 70% when we do it in world.

Let me know what you think of this version.

~Ulrika~

Yes, I agree with this. And in the case of the church and the museum, your points are well taken.

My intention in proposing the privitization of these two structures was essentially to achieve exactly what you're saying, but to achieve it via an interest group which:

1) Has the goals of the structure at heart and exists for the purpose of maintaining those goals, and...
2) Can be dedicated as a group to contribute the share of tier allocated to that land.

Of course we know that its common, certainly in most US cities, to invest private groups with the responsibility of major visible cultural monuments, the museums, the churches. In some cases those groups may exist under a charter from the local government, charging them with maintaining certain purposes of the institution (more in the case of museums than churches). Rather than administering the structure via the generalized interest set of the city as a whole, these responsibilities are devolved to an interested group devoted to just that building and its program.

I may be laboring too much over this point, and I certainly will support the city keeping its responsibilities to itself here. But, in the present circumstances where revenues for the city enterprise are so important, the idea that an interest group devoted to the principles of the institution might take on the responsibility of supporting that institution's tier becomes an attractive prospect.

I agree that this is a good compromise. I am sorry to see the present structure go, because I like its kind of dramatic Byzantine appearance. But the proposed location is excellent, and certainly achieves the goals you suggest. IF, it remains an attractive gambling destination in its new smaller size and decoration. We may want just a bit of "Talen input" on that issue.


Fair enough. Then, to drag in the roads issue as well,



... Let's clear a bit more space at the end of the bridge (0,192), maintain it as Gwyn suggests, and keep it as the future link to our new sim on the west. Likewise for the bit of road proceeding from the gate at the SE. We can reestablish "right of way" land to the edge of the sim, held open as a future road to our future link to our new sim to the east. Kind of a neat vision of the future, perhaps, where the walled city of Neualtenburg becomes the communication nexus for a network of sims. .

I like very much the way the layout is shaping up. I have taken the liberty of beginning to reshape some of the exterior lots to reflect this plan, and I'll continue to do that, while being very interested in feedback. Ulrika, you have previously suggested a Land Management Group to facilitate this transition process. Should we implement that? Drawing these lot lines (AND, doing the terra-forming tweaks necessary) will be a big job. My alt Rudeen can certainly do the exterior work, but the interior (inside the walls) work needs yourself or someone more familiar with the city buildings and structures.


Sudane

I was actually hoping Talen would be so kind as to translate his design to the new footprint. Not that he's busy with his own private sim or anything.

I agree with Gwyn's proposal for the roads as well. Now that we can terraform, I can clear up that bit of awkward land at the end of the bridge to make it terminate more gracefully.

Yes, please. If you have time I'd really appreciate it. I wanted to do it last night but I got involved with finishing up the map since it's in the critical path of the project.

Also, I have some pressing RL work to get done over the next few days, so I might be out for the next couple of evenings. I hope to return in world on the weekend to do some work in the city.

Yes. It'll take a while. If you'd like I can set aside some time this weekend to some focused work on the interior of the city. I'll replace structures, raise the land in the NE corner, and begin rezoning the interior. I'm wondering if I can rezone from underneath the ground since we can see under it at the sim edge.

Also, I would like to make an additional humble request for a transition to grass until we get our seasonal change strategy worked out. I will personally, delete and hand replace every tree in the sim with their non-Winter counterpart, if that sweetens the deal any. I ask again only as I have been living in and working exclusively on bleak white snow for the past 9 months and would love a change. *gets on knees*

~Ulrika~

LOL! Ulrika! I won't breathe a word of this over on the Poly Sci Forum . I'll switch over to grass (and hopefully some rock faces on the steep parts) sometime today. But, don't be shocked at how funny those snowy trees look .

I'll also go ahead and set up the Land Management Group. (Have to look up your email to see how it's spelled!). It would be great if we could all be plugging away at getting Neualtenburg ready for residencies. Any other Neualtenburger who wants to work, please say, and I'll add you to the group. Rudeen Edo (my alt, the technical owner) has to deed the land to a group before anyone else can work on it. For unknown reasons, deeding to the Neualtenburg group is not working, so we are setting up a new group for the transition purposes.

Although you can't move your avatar outside the boundary of the sim (for obvious reasons), you can swing your camera out there and under. Objects under there can be edited and deleted. But I'm really not sure about "Edit Land" functions. I'm inclined to doubt it.

Sudane

Well, I just received a progress report from Rudeen. Here's what's happening .

There's a bug in the Estate/Textures tool. It resets the "Detail Textures" OK, but not the "Base Textures". And this using the default textures supplied in the Library.

What's the difference, you might ask? Well, with the Detail Textures set, you see the new texture on the ground around you. But at 50 or 100 meters, that texture has blended back to the Base Texture. Needless to say, Neualteburg looks a bit strange. So she set back the Detail Textures to the snow.

She also set up the Raumnutzung group, which will be able to work on the land when she manages to deed over all the land to that group. If you want to work, please post your interest, and she can add you.

Finally, I've written to the "concierge" regarding the "Parcel Full" message problem. And, also the Estate texture problem. Hopefully these will be straightened out quickly.

Sudane

Send my thanks to Rudeen, Sudane. I really appreciate all the work both of you are doing.

~Ulrika~

I'd like to zone the land outside the walls in the NW corner of the city as modern. It would connect with the bridge architecturally and add variety to the sim, while remaining in theme. This idea was originally proposed, when the project was just starting. Kendra wanted to create an Altenburg (which is what the Spital area will transform into) and a "Neuburg" that had exclusively modern architecture. The rest of the city is of course a combination of the two.

What do you think about this zoning choice?

~Ulrika~

I think it's a great idea. You're talking about where the casino is now? The plot is called the NW Viertel, and it's about 6800 m2. But I couldn't split in with the casino sitting on it, so it still needs division. It could be very dramatic!

Sudane

Sounds like a great idea .
------------
Future Project Idea
------------

Fixing/Rebuilding The Senate Building
------------------------------------------
I recently visited Neualtenburg, and took a look at the Senate Building. Frankly, i don't think that the building matches with the Neualtenburg theme very well.

I was thinking of a "Reichstag" type of senate house, partially bavarian theme, and partially modern to fit the theme of Neualtenburg.

Comments? Suggestions?

Yes. I think we've already decided to remove the old senate building and move meetings down to the Rathaus which is right on the town square. It'll start out as a version of one of my fachwerks but will in time evolve into a more formal building like you suggest.

Great minds think alike, Eugene.

~Ulrika~

Ka-blewie!

Tonight I laid the groundwork for what I hope will be the final weekend of city zoning. I finally fixed our strange northern chasm using the "apply to selection" function for terraforming. I then deleted the old casino, senate, and stores to the East of the Marktplatz (town square) to prepare for new builds. I rezoned Altenburg (the southern-most part of the walled city), to exclude the street and city walls from the land. I also cleared out the neighborhood between the new casino location and Altenburg.

As I go, I've been updating a map that keeps exact track of the property lines.

Next, I plan to rebuild the neighborhood I removed, put up a new casino structure, and slightly modify the proposed street structure for outside the city walls. I would also like to connect the outer streets into rings instead of terminating them with cul-de-sacs.

~Ulrika~