So back to the drawing board: try to derive from Monopoly and Broadacres some rules that would help us with new developments in Docklands Second Decade, as well as improve the existing built up area of Docklands.
In archi-speak: "rules that will inform our design approach".
HOW: We couldn't come up with a metaphor for taking turns, dice, luck, chance or whatever. So we sort of approached it as that "somehow development will happen, but how are our rules informing the design of this new development?".
BUILT / UNBUILT:
There is an already built area of Docklands First Decade. And there are unbuilt areas for Docklands Second Decade. Could/should our rules apply to one of the two or are we geniuses and they apply to both? Our rules so far apply to new development only.THE 'CORE' RULE:
Where do our rules place this new development? We looked at the monopoly board in two ways:
The corner squares could be cross-roads, where the sides of the board intersect, eg. intersections of roads is where our development rules apply. That sort of rules out the non-built part, unless there is already some plan for road structures there, we could take it from there. Or we have to come up with our own roads, but then we need rules for that too.
The corner squares could also be where the (row of) roads stops, so our rules apply to where the current Dockland roads end.And if we are geniuses, our rules apply for both 1. and 2
THE GROWTH or PROGRESS RULES:THE 'ADJACENCY RULE': The player has to buy all streets of a colour before he can build houses.So our rule is that you can only build adjacent to existing built-up areas or new developments. This means there will not be 'pockets' of new development somewhere in the non-built areas of Docklands Second Decade.
THE 'EVEN PROGRESS' RULE:
Once all streets of a colour are bought, player has to place houses evenly over all streets of the same colour. So our rule is that development progresses evenly from the core, not a bit here and a bit there across the place. Our 'Core' rule determines where that core is.
THE 'SPATIAL RATIO' RULE:
Counting the 40 squares on the monopoly board,
There are 22 street squares = eg. 22 spaces Private Access / Activity = 55% of the area. These would be dwellings, houses, units, offices, with restricted access.
Twelve squares are amenities, like transport, electricity, water, chance, community chest and 3 spaces are 'safe' like Free parking, 1 is unsafe (Go to Jail) = 15 or 16 Public Access / Activity (depends on how you see jail) = 40% of the area. These would be shops, transport infrastructure, parks, playgrounds, library, public attractions, schools etc.
Two squares are Government Taxes = government funded activity = 5% of the area. This could be "Social Housing", but don't think commission flats, instead normal houses/units, government subsidized. Very common in f.i. Germany and Netherlands, where 40-50% of housing is built by government agencies, to keep control over affordability and rental prices. And it reduces dependency on developers: government becomes a sort of non-profit developer itself (with its own problems of course, but one could learn from the mistakes made in Europe and their solutions).
All this translates into a rule for the use of space for 55% Private Activity, 40% Public Activity and 5% Government Activity.
THE 'DENSITY' RULES:Playing around here with the 4 houses / 1 hotel rule. We could say: 100% density in the centre, then reducing density outwards. Makes for boring layout. And how to integrate with a neighbouring development?
We could say: in the development, there have to be areas with 20% density, 40% density, 60%, 80% or whatever, which would make for a more diverse design. But we would need as extra rule that determines what density is allowed on the neighbouring development, to prevent unwanted concentration of high or low densities on abutting sites.
We could also somehow translate the 1-4 houses / 1 hotel into 1-4 bedroom / 1 penthouse.This is where the Soduko magic square comes in, that provides rules how densities should be distributed over a site. More about this in later posts.
THE 'BONUS' RULE:
If you come past GO you get $$$. That translates into: if a developer 'plays the game', i.e. sticks to the Spatial Ratio Rule of 55% private + 40% public, the government will reimburse him for the 5% social housing under government control.
A 'PENALTY' RULE ??? (the Go to Jail square):
We're struggling with this one. If a developer builds unsustainable (sorry to use that word Craig), he doesn't get the 5% government subsidy? Would he care? Or should he lose the contract? Or is excluded from next round of developments? But sustainability rules are already in ResCode, or the builder might just walk away and then we've got nothing.
The 'Jail' as penalty could also have to do with unwanted or "unattractive" development, which could then also apply to the existing built area of Docklands. We have to work on further ideas here. IF we really want to have some Penalty Rule, we have to come up with something better as a metaphor for Jail/Penalty.
So far some rules seem to make sense, we still have to work on others to make the 'game' complete. And work.
PS. What happened to Broadacres?
