Finally... terrain and parcels for Alpine Meadows :)

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Jon misunderstood my proposal. I propose, as I have since the beginning of planning for this new sim, that we purchase a package of four voids and attach one to each side of NFS. It would be easy to terraform and allocate parcels based on Moon's current plan, including the double prim plots and the seven parcels. You could sell the sims now, as is, while obtaining an agreement with the land purchasers that the terraforming - roadways, waterways - might change a bit in the future when new sims are added.

By doing so, you will:

1) Address the altitude changes in all directions, you will have rural sims between NFS and its "daughters",

2) Ensure the ability to grow the CDS by locking in grid space in all four directions of the original sim,

3) Address the issue of theme bleed as you have rural areas between regular sims without the high cost of purchasing four new sims, also allowing each void to pave the way towards a new theme gradually,

4) Enable the addition of 28 new citizens, each of whom will have sufficent prims to build on their plot of land,

5) Lower the cost of ownership for those wishing to establish residency in an Alpine sim, many of whom might just want open land and a small build in a pretty venue instead of a McMansion,

6) Spread the cost of the new sims amongst 28 people instead of 7, lowering the risk and costs for other CDS citizens and addressing Diderot's concerns regarding solidaric financing.

7) Triples our footprint in SL - we would move from 2 to 6 sims. Voids work, Sudane has many in SLNE and Desmond has discovered the joy in profits voids can bring to a land baron - his new sims are voids and were oversubscribed before he built them.

Kept the vision of the proposer alive, yet allow for the other's views and ideas in the other three sims. E.g., allowing for Roses's idea of an alpine recreational sim and addressing her objections to a monastery as not being within her vision, whilst allowing those with a different vision, e.g., the monastery, to build one to their liking in their own sim.

By surrounding NFS with voids, you show that governance in SL works by creating a City on the Hill for all of SL to see, literally and figuratively speaking.

[Moon Adamant]

Jon, thank you very much for concretizing your views on not only one, but two proposals
I fully appreciate the work and care involved

[Jon Seattle]

Jon misunderstood my proposal.

Sorry about that, I think this is a very interesting alternative also.

[Moon Adamant]

Jon misunderstood my proposal. I propose that we purchase a package of four voids and attach one to each side of NFS. It would be easy to terraform and allocate parcels based on Moon's current plan, including the double prim plots and the seven parcels. You could sell the sims now, as is, while obtaining an agreement with the land purchasers that the terraforming - roadsway, waterways - might change a bit in the future when new sims are added.

Just a comment on this:

Void sims do not hold 15.000 prims, but only 1.875. That is, they hold 12.5% of the normal primmage of a sim. So, double prim plots wouldn't be really ... double prim plots, but actually 25% prim plots (2*12.5%=25% ).

To clarify, a 1024 m2 plot would hold:

- 234 prims in a normal sim (ex: NFS and CN)
- 468 prims in a double prim sim
- 29 prims in a void sim
- 58 prims in a double prim void sim

Considering Exp10 proposal (just as a handy example, seeing it has the reckoning done) it would have 90% private prims and 10% public prims (rounded up). This means that we would have 187 prims for trees, river, boulders, bridges and roads. The 7 dwellers would share 1688 prims, that is in average, 241 prims each.

Or am i not getting what you mean?

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Or am i not getting what you mean?

You are getting what I mean, I did not know the difference in the amount of prims, but I don't think this matters much.

I still think that this is a viable option for what is essentially unbuildable land based on the altitude differences. For those limited to 60 some prims on a town lot in NFS, 241 prims would be a bounty. The monestary could have its own sim, the cost being about equal to what it would be for one plot in the AP sim.

I hate to see the CDS build an entire sim for a privileged few on a vision that not everyone shares. Yes, there was a vote on the theme, but only two choices. I don't consider that to be a landslide of support for the "vision" of the contest winner.

[michelmanen]

The question of course becomes why there were only two choices and why others couldn't be bothered to make proposals such as the one you're making now.....

[Bromo Ivory]

I do think we have to consider growing our citizen base as much as possible - I don't mind double prims (since you then reserve "unbuildable land" for prim budgets) but would prefer a mixure of 512, 768 and 1024 sized lots. I don't mind larger plots as long as they are used sparingly.

[Dnate Mars]

The question of course becomes why there were only two choices and why others couldn't be bothered to make proposals such as the one you're making now.....

We had more, but as I recall, some of the people decided they didn't want to be part of the competition.

[michelmanen]

Yes, after being harassed and insulted and dragged through the mudd by public officials.. a CDS specialty I think...

[Dnate Mars]

Jon, I do like what I am seeing with option 1. I really like the way you set up the monastery area. But I think I would change a few things. I would post a pretty drawing like you did, but I suck at it. So words will have to do.

Changes I would like to have seen:

B3 and B4, combine them into a single plot.
A2 needs to be split apart. I was thinking of 1B, 1C, 2D.
I think that D6 and D7 should become a C.
Combining B1 and B2 might also be a good idea, but then that may be too much.

That will give us 18 plots to work with. I think we should have a strict limit of 1 plot per person in this sim. The convents are also going to have to play a really key role in the sim.

[Jon Seattle]

Jon, I do like what I am seeing with option 1. I really like the way you set up the monastery area. But I think I would change a few things. I would post a pretty drawing like you did, but I suck at it. So words will have to do.

Hi Dnate. I would be glad to draw your option as well. I will send you a copy this evening.

Correction: posted Dnate's suggestion below

[Jon Seattle]

This is my attempt at drawing DNate's suggestion. (Dnate, please tell me if I have anything wrong on this, I will change it asap.) It moves the population concentration a bit towards the center on the north (CN) edge.

[Dnate Mars]

That is mostly what I had in mind. Thanks!

[Jon Seattle]

During a large segment of my childhood I grew up in a tiny village in the mountains in New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Hill%2C_New_York). The village voted to disincorporate after I moved away. Like many places in the european countryside, Pine Hill and the surrounding area have fairly dense settlement (because it is packed into valleys mostly), but it is still clearly rural.

In fact you can create a 3D model of a rural settlement in 1 m square area if you pay attention to scale, the kind and distribution of structures, and work with the landscape. Of course we have to go larger than 1M if we want normal avatars to inhabit the place, but density in terms of residents per meter is not the controlling factor.

SL houses are different from RL houses. Because small spaces are so hard to navigate (and because actual bathrooms and kitchens are cute but not needed) SL houses tend to have fewer and larger rooms. SL rooms, and the general scale of houses tends to be far larger than RL. If you control the scale, SL houses become quite a bit smaller than RL houses.

There are a number of tools that can and should be used to make the new sim look rural, and they really can succeed on these plans:

1. Set a uniform and reasonable scale for structures. On Cedar Island all the house footprints are limited to 256 m2 and no higher than 12 m. This makes for small but reasonable structures that may be one or two stories in hight. Alps structures might be limited to something more than this, but I found that setting a reasonable scale from the start adds to the believability and aesthetics of a place, as well as greatly reducing visual clutter.

2. Cluster structures. In the working plans we have posted (both my and Dnate’s versions) we place four smaller plots next to the monastery, thus merging them with visually with the monastery. Three additional small plots are clustered in the north end of the sim. These can contained adjoined adjoined houses that will appear as one build area. In effect the plans add seven additional residents with one additional visual structure.

People in actual rural areas tend to be poor (look, for example at the median income in Pine Hill compared to the median for the US) so their houses are small (not grand palaces) and in the mountains often clustered in the few flat areas. At least to my eyes, clusters of smaller houses look more rural than large grand estates.

3. Use visual barriers and forested green-belts. A smart landscape architect is always working with lines of sight. Your impression on how cluttered a space is depends only on what you can see and how far it appears. A large part of why Pine Hill seems so sparsely populated has to do with thee fact that open areas are just about always limited by forested belts. You typically look out over a small field surrounded by forest.

By the way, it can be hard to read, but Moon’s design for exp10 does a great deal of this, first by creating a large un-populated belt around the river, and also creating spaces between built areas that can be filled by forest or hedge.

The product of this project can easily be both rural and lovely, looking like a model european Alps countryside. It won’t achieve that by taking the lazisfare approach of dividing the land into huge plots and letting the owners decide what to build at any arbitrary scale. It requires so careful landscape and structure design.

I like Sudane’s proposed alternative of having a sim that is basically 100% public and NGO. (A little different from the idea that the sim would be 100% private that we were discussing not very long ago.) But I think it requires a consensus among citizens that they are willing to pay for the new space. I am not at all sure that consensus will emerge. If not, this project can be very successful if executed well.

[Bromo Ivory]

No consensus would be required, Jon. Just 4 of 7 in the RA for a law, and 5 of 7 for an amendment.

But you are right, such a task would require a redefinition of citizenship to "give back' for money towards the public space - or a great deal of civic mindedness driving large donations towards the general public.

So given the thrashing I have been taking on the forums and in world for the commission, I am doubtful that the RA is in the mood to consider anything like that.