You can tell people not to build in your city, just don't expect them to continue investing there if you fuck them over.
Locked supply. Affordable housing. Growing standards of living (or population). Pick two.
If you lock supply and want taxes and wages to grow, you're choosing unaffordable housing. That's San Francisco's current policy choice. Over decades, it filters the poor to San Francisco's "outer boroughs" or onto its streets.
For what it's worth, my friends who lived in San Francisco "took the hint" and moved out when they chose to have kids. They didn't sell their place, however, since the above policy mix together with California's property-tax system strongly disincentivizes that.
I haven't played OP's game but hopefully it accurately models the plummetting quality of life and rampant homelessness created by doing what you describe in the real world.
Also, note that these cities always happily welcome more offices and businesses. They just don't want to build the housing for those workers to actually live in.
Regardless, I don't think it would actually make the game more fun.
1. There are three resources: food, industrial production, and commercial activity;
2. As the player, you can divide commercial activity between three categories: research, state revenue, and local "luxuries", which in this context just means tax relief;
3. Scientific progress occurs when you've produced enough research to learn a new technology;
4. The only appearance of "education" anywhere in the game is that there is an expensive building called a "university" that increases local production of research. (The predecessor building with the same effect at a lower cost is the "library".)
On the other hand, "there is always division and infighting" is one of the most important and fundamental mechanics in the game; if your city grows beyond a quite small population cap, new citizens are automatically unhappy and will shut down the whole city unless pacified somehow.
It sounds like you just don't agree with how they've implemented America lol.
I started something similar as a meme game, but I'm just too busy to keep working on it: Data centre slumlord - https://binary-mirror.itch.io/data-centre-slumlord
Davis had a long and contentious civic debate on whether or not Target should be allowed to build a store in Davis, eventually Davis held a city wide vote on the matter, which did pass [1].
Davis voters reject Measure V, spiking plans to build Village Farms housing [2].
Just a couple of examples where growth that most cities would approve without thought became a city wide civic issue that the community actually voted on.
[1] https://localwiki.org/davis/Target/History [2] https://www.abridged.org/news/davis-measure-v-election-updat...
Laws and code should be transparent.
As would, I’d think, San Francisco under a similar system.
It’s not a good solution. But for the preferences San Francisco’s residents seem to be expressing, it’s the only way. (Fortunately, it’s probably unconstitutional.)
Open immigration for rest of the country from around the world but closed for their city from rest of the country is what these “progressives” seem to want by their actions.
Discretionary Review (Developer): I built 4,147 homes in San Francisco, 2015 to 2031. Grade A, "Builder of Some Things". Survived all eight investor reviews. 16 hearings, 3 appeals, 4 lawsuits. The city needed 82,069.
Here’s my build order - 3 market rate projects in supportive supervisor districts, ideally in areas without heavy neighbor or coalition opposition (use the heat maps). Pay the in lieu fee or else risk the projects not penciling by the time they’re approved - 2 mega projects - mission rock is the best one, then pier 70. Waive prevailing wages, then Spend 2.5M on campaigning mission rock and offer community benefits
Spam community meetings and permit expediting. Don’t agree to labor agreements, don’t give density unless the commission denies your approval. This should get you past the first two investor reviews. Ideally you can complete a mega project, which gives you a buffer to option a bunch of marginal land
Then pivot to affordable around 2020 when everything stops penciling. Max out density bonuses. Start picking up projects that almost pencil but not quite because you’ll need them to get past the reviews in 2027 and beyond
Keep spamming community meetings and permit expediting, and always pay to save on build time unless your in the 20-25 doldrums where nothing pencils. Keep your pipeline full and you should win
Source? (To be clear, not doubting you.)
I feel like every fish on the Welsh coast could have its own personal concierge for that price.
> The estimated cost of the structure is c. £95 million in 2019 prices. This can also be expressed as £114m in 2022 prices.
If they hadn't been so focused on that, they could have built the new rails largely alongside the existing West Coast Main Line which would have been quicker, cheaper and much less controversial.
But because they wanted those very high speeds, the route had to be flatter and straighter than the existing WCML, which means many more tunnels, longer and more complex construction, more people objecting, inconvenienced etc and ultimately much more cost however you look at it.
Dunno, if you are dumb enough to try to build a high speed line through an area where endangered species are protected then yeah you’re going to have to avoid killing them.
Your link claims, technically correctly, that the bat tunnel was not forced by conservationists or wildlife protection laws. What it does not ever admit is that those laws forced something to happen, and that it was already known more than 10 years ago that the least expensive "something" was the bat tunnel.
Specifically your link says regarding the tunnel:
> HS2 Ltd, a government-owned company, proposed the structure. You can read what they have to say about it here (https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/environmental-sustainabi...).
That link says, under the section "Which other options did HS2 look at?":
> In 2021, a ‘first principles’ review was undertaken by the Department for Transport, DEFRA and Natural England, but did not identify any better solution that was able to both fulfil the requirements of the relevant legislation relating to species protection whilst also reducing cost.
> The most feasible engineering options were also subject to an additional independent design review by the consultants Arup, which concluded that the solution now being taken forward provided the best balance of value for money and risk mitigation, from the four viable options that were shortlisted.
> Choosing any of the other options would have opened-up the risk of legal challenge, delay and subsequent extra cost.
> Options considered included a bored tunnel beneath this area, a shallower ‘cut and cover’ tunnel and rerouting the railway away from the wood altogether. Consideration was even given to permanently slowing down trains as they run past the area.
Regarding my earlier "known 10 years ago" claim, it says:
> The need for the structure was identified by HS2 Ltd more than 10 years ago, following extensive surveying of bat populations by our own ecologists.
Finally, it also says:
> Despite the passing of the 2017 Act, HS2 Ltd still had to gain almost 8,500 environmental or planning consents along the 140-mile route from London to the West Midlands.
8500 consents. Your link claims that other causes, like "underfunding" and "bad project management" are to blame for cost and time overruns, and that environmental consents are being used as a scapegoat. That would be easier to believe if that consent number was, say, two orders of magnitude smaller.
One specific complaint: The BART station entrances at 16th/24th & Mission: Why not build huge apartment buildings (10/20/30 floors) on top of them? And since both locations are a pair of entrances, you can close one, then build. Then repeat with the other entrance. They seem like perfect locations. There must be a bunch more no brainer lots around the city like these.
It’s kind of mind-blowing to remember that what’s the basic residential building standard everywhere else in the world is already “huge” in most American cities.
> Every rule, vote count and case in this game is drawn from the public record. Sources are in docs/research/ in the project folder. Neighborhood politics scores and the economics are simplified for play.
Nice, I'm happy to hear that, Claude. This kind of silly game is supposed to help you understand a complex issue in a fun way. But this is missing the plot entirely. Why is this so overwhelmingly complex? Why would I spend time learning this ugly, convoluted and verbose UI? Who is this for??
EDIT: I'll link to an example of what I think this game should have been: https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html
A game made with intent, that is easy to pick up, respects its player's time, and makes its point effectively.
Like most vibe coded projects, it is for the person who created it. And usually only them.
There's no reason a "housing crisis" game couldn't have been done like that, with simple choices and immediate reactions. A game that respects the player's time, is easy to pick up and makes the point effectively.
I really do think that complexity and UI obtuseness was implemented as commentary, not as a mistake.
I honestly don’t see what you’re going on about. If this was made five years ago we would have standing ovations. It’s the AI, right? I think it is great. It was fun to play. Your phd game example is boring as hell.
I actually was surprised I liked this convoluted bureaucracy. Reality is fighting you all the way, love it. Normal games are too straightforward. That said I assume it was just a toy project.
I respectfully disagree. I played it twice. Once, I lost. That cued me into looking at a few more datapoints the second time around, when I made it through.
I never wound up looking at everything. I didn’t need to. That said, I could probably improve my score if I did.
You can play most games to completion while ignoring the complexity. If you want to dive deeper, however, that complexity is fun. I certainly appreciated uncovering little details around how the various metrics played together, and how, in turn, that affected how I should play.
It is frustrating to be excluded when a game developer builds a game that looks interesting but targets a niche you don't fit in.
Also those https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html style games are a bit vapid. At any moment a person has more than a handful of choices and the simplification abstracts away the important ones, like ranking what ideas are important or changing strategies for idea generation in this one.
> Also those https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html style games are a bit vapid.
I agree, but please try to engage with what I'm saying. Both the PhD game and TFA are made with the goal of teaching an issue to a broader audience. Do you think TFA is an effective tool of communication? Don't you think its messaging could have been better conveyed had it been designed with more intent, less focused on piling on feature after feature for a game that isn't designed to be replayed more than once?
Both TFA and the PhD game should be considered "educational", people won't come back to those again and again because of how fun they are. They're designed to appear in HN feed, be played once, learn maybe a thing or two in an amusing way, and never be opened again. Do you understand now why I find this complexity so counter-productive? It's fine for a game to be complex, if it's designed for players that will sink hundreds of hours into them. It's not fine for a silly project to demand the same learning effort from its players.
> This runs into the reality that the game maker knows who his target audience is, but you don't.
Have you considered that TFA was vibe-coded, and maybe the "game maker" hasn't put much thought into who his target audience could be, like, at all, and just asked Claude to make a game about NIMBYism?
I mean, are? It looks like it might be trying to create a San Francisco housing simulator. Simulators aren't necessarily tools of education. That's why I picked DF as a comparison - it is a Moria siumulator, but it isn't supposed to educate its players on the nature of Tolkien. It is more about exploring a complex environment.
And the PhD game doesn't look like it is going to teach anyone anything. It reads to me like some guy blowing off steam without having much of substance to say. Which is also fine, it just isn't much of an educational journey.
You're implicitly assuming that you have determined the target audience and goal of the game. And while you might be accurate, you might also be inaccurate. There is a decent chance that the target audience is people who look at this and think "ooh, cool". It is great fun to criticise games but claiming that a game is in the wrong genre altogether is just a bit much for me today. If you don't like this genre that is cool, but the game maker might just be doing his own thing and having fun.
> Have you considered that TFA was vibe-coded, and maybe the "game maker" hasn't put much thought into who his target audience could be, like, at all, and just asked Claude to make a game about NIMBYism?
His target audience could be himself, in which case he's probably got a deep understanding of who they are and whether they enjoy the game.
The PhD game came across as a blog post masquerading as a game. The city-building one was fun even if you ignore the lessons it's teaching. (You don't have to read the news articles. They're cleverly written, however, and so sort of fun to.)
Tell me you never played the old TUI dwarf fortress without telling me.
My guess is that's the point - now you understand how San Francisco property developers feel.