Moderator: SC Moderators
Dnate Mars wrote:Salzie Sachertorte wrote:Dnate Mars wrote:If there is a demand for more of the open double sims with just a few plots, that makes it easy to decide on what the next sim will be.
As for building, the only building that really needs to be done is a river and roads. That isn't all that hard.
So, you are going to cater to the rich?
We will cater to demand.
Then I demand smaller plots - and voids.
Ugh, Ok people, what about that? We seem to be having 2 competing interests forming here. Honestly, I don't think this question was ever answered. What if we go with voids? We could use one of them for the monastery, which would be about right, in the terms of prims. Then the question is what to do with the other 3?
We could go with something like what #9 is and have a sim full of plot, but then we have gotten rid of the entire "rural mountainside" and turned it into a city on the mountain.
We go with just the few plots that we have listed in #10, and be accused of only caring about the rich.
So, what does everyone want?
Dnate Mars wrote:If there is a demand for more of the open double sims with just a few plots, that makes it easy to decide on what the next sim will be.
If there is demand for this arrangement and also demand for smaller plots (as there has usually been) you would prefer the palatial estates?
DNate, you are making several wrong assumptions. First of all, not many people are looking for 8900 m2 (equivalent) plots on super-steep slopes. Having fewer plots greatly increases our risk. Just loosing a couple of residents will do very bad things to our finances. This is the proverbial putting all your eggs in one basket.
Second, we are a supposed to be a community devoted to democracy. That means one person one vote (last time I looked). When one small elite group of people owns as much land as 40 or 50 small holders (do the math!), they will naturally feel they have more of a stake, and demand more than a single vote.
Third, how can you demand that Guild members devote their craft and time to a project that will benefit just a few of the very rich at our expense. I already devoted more than a month of my free time to this project, including software development, etc. Its not just a few roads and landscape, this project has already been expensive in volunteer time and will become more so.
If there is demand for both, then we will have both. Just because people may feel that they should have more of a say doesn't not mean that they will. I wanted a void there, but being just one person, I didn't have much say. Saying that this sim is just for a few is implying that no one else can go there. That is insane. According to you, if the plan go forward as it, I can't go there and enjoy the openness of the sim? Also, isn't part of the plan to have things like bicycles and water rafting? Aren't those going to be used by everyone, not just he people that have these few plots?
I have never demanded that anyone do anything. I just think that having the bigger plots would help keep the openness of the sim. That is what I want. Having 30 small plots means that we will have a something like 30 house all over the sim. I don't like that idea.
Also, attacking me personally for my ideas does not make your idea better.
Dnate Mars wrote:Ugh, Ok people, what about that? We seem to be having 2 competing interests forming here. Honestly, I don't think this question was ever answered. What if we go with voids? We could use one of them for the monastery, which would be about right, in the terms of prims. Then the question is what to do with the other 3?
We could go with something like what #9 is and have a sim full of plot, but then we have gotten rid of the entire "rural mountainside" and turned it into a city on the mountain.
We go with just the few plots that we have listed in proposal #10, and be accused of only caring about the rich.
• Or we can go with the spaces listed in #10 and subdivide some of them so as to have about 12 or 15 residents instead of 6. It still is rural. The idea that rural = 7 residents with a share of of the sim of 9362 m2 each (65536 / 7 = the total area of the sim divided by seven) makes no sense at all. How large do you feel the plots need to be to be rural? No resident with less than 9000 m2!?
• Or we can consider Salzie's real proposal (as I understand it) that we use two voids in sequence to bring down the elevation from NFS to CN rather than one very steep one.
The point is that the idea that we should build an entire sim for six or seven individuals is just one of many options. We should very seriously be considering the other options.
Dnate Mars wrote:Ugh, Ok people, what about that? We seem to be having 2 competing interests forming here. Honestly, I don't think this question was ever answered. What if we go with voids? We could use one of them for the monastery, which would be about right, in the terms of prims. Then the question is what to do with the other 3?
I remember that we had that discussion about void some time ago. At least two citizen, at that time, were ready to get one of these void sims. I have always considered that a void sim would have been the best solution to link NFS and CN. But now it's to late to return to this possibility. We have to do our best for the new sim.
I consider also that one of the reason that we had, as community, to build this sim was to get more citizen. More citizen would be for me at least 20. So I am in favour of a solution of smaller plots. I would find nice to see in this sim a small village, for example, with commercial activities.
Dnate Mars wrote:Saying that this sim is just for a few is implying that no one else can go there. That is insane. According to you, if the plan go forward as it, I can't go there and enjoy the openness of the sim? Also, isn't part of the plan to have things like bicycles and water rafting? Aren't those going to be used by everyone, not just he people that have these few plots?
It will all be private land. Thank goodness for the monastery, or you might be restricted to the road. No, Dnate, this is not good enough.
Dnate Mars wrote:I have never demanded that anyone do anything. I just think that having the bigger plots would help keep the openness of the sim. That is what I want. Having 30 small plots means that we will have a something like 30 house all over the sim. I don't like that idea.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I proposed that we have 12 to 15 residents, and you have twisted that to be 30.
Dnate Mars wrote:Also, attacking me personally for my ideas does not make your idea better.
I have been writing about sims and prims and residents. How is that attacking you? And yes, when you support a sim with only seven residents, you are demanding that my and other's time and effort be taken from us for what amounts to a private project built with community resources.
Jon Seattle wrote:Dnate Mars wrote:Saying that this sim is just for a few is implying that no one else can go there. That is insane. According to you, if the plan go forward as it, I can't go there and enjoy the openness of the sim? Also, isn't part of the plan to have things like bicycles and water rafting? Aren't those going to be used by everyone, not just he people that have these few plots?
It will all be private land. Thank goodness for the monastery, or you might be restricted to the road. No, Dnate, this is not good enough.
Dnate Mars wrote:I have never demanded that anyone do anything. I just think that having the bigger plots would help keep the openness of the sim. That is what I want. Having 30 small plots means that we will have a something like 30 house all over the sim. I don't like that idea.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I proposed that we have 12 to 15 residents, and you have twisted that to be 30.
Dnate Mars wrote:Also, attacking me personally for my ideas does not make your idea better.
I have been writing about sims and prims and residents. How is that attacking you? And yes, when you support a sim with only seven residents, you are demanding that my and other's time and effort be taken from us for what amounts to a private project built with community resources.
Put your plot design out there. Let us see it. People do want it to be a densely populated sim. People want it to be 30 plots. Others want it to be 7. It is not possible to please both groups. We have dragged this out for 4 months, how can we still not be anywhere close to an agreement on anything still?
namaste, all,
i've been reading the exchange here with great interest. my opinion, for what it is worth, is that six large landholders in the new sim does not benefit the CDS in any measurable way, save keeping the land "rural."
there is another option to keep the land "rural": zoning. jon somewhat referred to it in one of his responses, by designating an area of the sim as "residential", or "village", to allow for a more dense housing area. the RA would be perfectly within its rights to designate some of the land as "void", "wetlands", or "protected", or zone it to strictly limit prim amounts.
we may be coming to a point where we need to address these issues, particularly with this sim, which will serve as a connector between n'stadt and CN.
perhaps it is time for a zoning commission?
yoge
Dnate Mars wrote:Put your plot design out there. Let us see it. People do want it to be a densely populated sim. People want it to be 30 plots. Others want it to be 7. It is not possible to please both groups. We have dragged this out for 4 months, how can we still not be anywhere close to an agreement on anything still?
The fact is that Moon's design for plan 10 assumed that some plots would be subdivided. She told me that several times, in fact we discussed several different building styles that could be used to do the subdivision while keeping the place as rural as possible.
Now you think it cleaver if you can take apart some specific plan that I throw together at the last moment, but its the principle of the thing that counts. It really is the seven person sim people who have changed the plan at the last moment and are dragging this out. Moon never intended to limit the population in that way.
No, I don't want to rip your plan apart, I want to know better what you are envisioning. I know what Moon wanted, I think she even said it in this post. At the guild meeting, I even said that there could be some tweeking of the plan. I just think that bigger plots are a good idea. After all, all 3 sims are part of the CDS.
Dnate Mars wrote:No, I don't want to rip your plan apart, I want to know better what you are envisioning. I know what Moon wanted, I think she even said it in this post. At the guild meeting, I even said that there could be some tweeking of the plan. I just think that bigger plots are a good idea. After all, all 3 sims are part of the CDS.
Good! Then I will post some alternatives tomorrow morning.
Arria Perreault wrote:I remember that we had that discussion about void some time ago. At least two citizen, at that time, were ready to get one of these void sims. I have always considered that a void sim would have been the best solution to link NFS and CN. But now it's to late to return to this possibility. We have to do our best for the new sim.
I consider also that one of the reason that we had, as community, to build this sim was to get more citizen. More citizen would be for me at least 20. So I am in favour of a solution of smaller plots. I would find nice to see in this sim a small village, for example, with commercial activities.
For what it's worth I would have to say I agree with Arria's opinion.
In addition to the arguments already advanced in favour of smaller parcels in the new sim I'd like to mention the following:
1) Having large parcels does not guarantee a 'rural' feel since all parcels will be double prim every parcel owner could theoretically fill his entire plot with buildings. A covenant is a better tool for ensuring some free space between parcels. However, a covenant will work equally well for smaller parcels as it will for larger parcels.
2) The new sim will cost 100 USD more per month to maintain than the present sims. As far as I know a final decision has not been taken about how to finance this but my impression was the general attitude was in favour of solidaric financing - i.e. spreading the marginal cost between all the tenants rather than just the ones that move into "Alpine Meadows". If the new sim will contain only enough parcels to sustain six citizens the 100 USD in extra monthly tier fees may seem like a disproportionate additional cost to many.
3) Also, to the issue of whether there will be any access to the public in this sim in areas outside the monastery I do not see that large, privately owned parcels will by themselves guarantee the availability of some land in which anyone can squat. In both Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt for example, there have been cases of a few parcels being blocked for access by anyone not on the 'whitelist'.
The community discussed the issue at the time but felt that it was not necessary to legislate against use of the access control feature in CDS prefering instead to rely on the understanding and goodwill of neighbours as might be sufficient for a small community, where everybody knows everyone else.
However, as the community reaches 80+ citizens this neighbour relying on the understanding of neighbour approach may no longer be enough. Imagine the harmful impact for the Alpine Meadows sim of having cone or two of the imagined superparcels of 8,000 sqm being set to block access to anyone not on a whitelist.
As a consequence of all this in addition to Arria and Jon's comments - especially the one about financial vulnerability - I would have to say I support the proposal to partition the sim into more and smaller parcels than the six to eight currently on the table.
Here are two options. Note that these are not "the" proposal, they are just some alternatives.
Option 1. The maintains two of the huge plots, but creates a nice mix. There is a row of houses behind the Monastery (I believe that is traditional.) What I envision in that spot is a nice cobble lane. Note that the layout is not at all busy or dense.
A plots - prim size 8192 m2 (4096 in area)
B plots - prim size 4096 m2 (2048 in area) including the Monastery
C plots - prim size 2048 m2 (1024 in area)
D plots - prim size 1025 m2 (512 in area)
Option 2.
I think we should have a real discussion on limits before pulling out all the stops. This second layout splits the A plots in two (so each part is a B plot in size) so as to maintain our current limit of 4096 m2 (prim size) in any one sim. It has 20 instead of 18 plots. I would prefer this one.
deleting double post