General Master Plan (GMP)

Forum to discuss and coordinate the expansion of the CDS and the redevelopment of existing territories.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote:

Timo, the law follows the 2008 General Masterplan (which was never revoked, so we ought to assume it's still valid).

More info here: http://masterplan.slcds.info/2008/06/11 ... xpansions/

According to the rules established in the General Masterplan (GMP), the landmass of the CDS is divided into 'themed clusters'. The RA only decides which region inside a cluster is to be built next and what the next cluster (besides the three clusters we already have) ought to be.

As you can see, the West Neufreistadt region ought to be Middle-European (i.e. just like Neufreistadt). The region westwards of West Neufreistadt would be part of a 'connection cluster' towards Cluster 5, which, as yet, has no theme. Connection clusters might be 'transitional'; so, for instance, Cluster 5 is, say, themed to look like Mars, then the transition region might have Fachwerks on a red desert :)

However, I'm fine in clarifying this on a separate thread (this one is for the 10th anniversary region :-) )

Wow! Thanks for reminding us about the GMP, Gwyn. My impression was, that it was buried, because nobody, I have chatted with, seems to be aware of it anymore. But apparently I was wrong!

I think, that the GMP is a good idea in general, but it should be revised from time to time. The current version is from 2008/2009, when our virtual world view was different. In 2008 there was a prevailing assumption, that water sims (like LA) sell well and we should get down from the mountains quick. That can be seen in the GMP clearly. There were different voices too, but democracy favors majority over minority, that practically dumped "mountain people's" view about bigger mountain area. As result of this, our former chancellor and active contributor Sonja founded Arosa Village and concentrated her effort to its future.

I propose, that before adding the new sim, the GMP 2008 plan is reviewed and updated by the guild in consultation with the CDS citizenry.

Image
GMP workgroup of March 26, 2009

User avatar
Cadence Theas
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:50 am

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Cadence Theas »

Timo, I think you are absolutely correct in suggesting that the GMP needs to be reviewed and revised. The fact that LA and Monastery do not conform to the 2008 GMP is already an indication that it needs to be rethought and perhaps reprioritized.

But I think the issue is even larger. Some of the candidates have turned the new sim into a campaign promise and are railroading the idea before serious discussion about how to incorporate a new sim into CDS. And this pressure, instead of allowing for rational discussion, is leading to an emotional knee-jerk reaction that will not result in a sim that harmonizes differences or contributes to a revitalized CDS.

I seriously suggest that the next 21st RA, instead of planning the new sim, establish the informative and consultative town hall meetings and forum discussions that can then lead to a truly INFORMED referendum in the next election for the 22nd RA. A referendum in this 21st RA election is premature, rushed, and ill-serves CDS.

User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

Actually there is something really odd about the GMP. All the timestamps in the masterplan site are from June 2008, including the Wordpress image links. However, the GMP was work on progress in 2009 still. Just compare the plan to the screenshot from March 2009 above. It looks strongly, that the version on the web site is just an early draft!

Cadence is also right about LA and Monastery sims. The plan doesn't have an updated version of them either.

We are far from our goal. Let's stop the train and finish our plans first!

User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

It's confirmed now. The version in the web site is the old one, which was replaced by a better one during the GMP workshops. Here are three pictures and my comments from my archives, that show you a distant progress of the GMP evolution. You can see the 2008 GMP in the first picture.

Image
January 2009. As the new GMP is on the way, a public review of the old data was placed in the class room 3 of the New Guild School

Image
March 2009. Discussed about exclusion of the Al Andalus cluster from the plan until Representative Assembly makes a political decision about it.

Image
April 2009. GMP Workshop

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Ooooooooh-kay :) *sigh*

Let's wind back the clock back a few years!

The whole issue of the General Masterplan was not 'merely' to have a nicely updated map :) In fact, the major reasoning behind it was to speed up the process of adding further regions to the CDS. Yes, speed up, not slow it down! The idea was that there would be a team of builders, some of them even with formal training in urban planning, who would propose the overall expansion plan, many many years in advance, by making reasonable recommendations and creating an unified whole. Even to this day, it always surprises me (but it shouldn't!) how well all regions of the CDS 'fit together', even taking into account that they have very different themes!

Once there was a GMP, then developing new regions would become 'administrative issues' instead of 'political discussions'. This is, as you can see, an expansionist view: creating mechanisms through which we can make the CDS grow faster, with little bureaucracy, less discussion, next-to-zero drama, and so forth.

In RL, politicians consult with experts to provide them with reasonable, sensible options, and constantly make decisions aided by them. Thus, the 'New Guild' was founded with that role. It was not merely an assembly or 'union' of builders (although it was that as well), but a board of experts who would plan the CDS well in advance, and formally aid politicians to make decisions that impact the way the CDS looks like (in terms of urbanity). Obviously the 'New Guild' had more roles — 'tactical planning' in the sense of creating detailed specifications for building, project management during a region development, and so forth. They employed a huge array of tools, web-based and in-world, to achieve all those goals. The two pillars of the New Guild were transparency — all decisions, all planning, all project management were made public and could always been consulted — and inclusivity — anyone could be a member and come to all its meetings voluntarily and join the discussion and voting.

As such, the New Guild's role was fundamental for NL 8-2, the 'In-Theme' Expansion Act. Because all discussion was done well in advance, procedures were well-established, and there were formal and official ties with the Executive, it was felt (according to good expansionist principles!) that the CDS could dispense the long-winded and extensive discussions that usually surround planning and developing a new region. Instead, any Chancellor, looking at their budget, could simply point at a region in the GMP map and say, 'let's build this one'. They wouldn't need to consult with anyone else besides the New Guild, to be provided with a plan and a team of builders with their own methodology of project management. The RA, in these cases, would mostly have the role of nodding (unless some serious breach of procedure was found), but would not interfere in the overall expansion of the CDS, so long as it stuck to the GMP. We naively expected to get 1 or 2 new regions per term that way.

This also meant that the political discussion was just made surrounding the GMP, which requires formal approval by the RA. Currently, after the 2008 GMP has been formally approved, we also approved an extended GMP that included the AA regions (see http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 31&p=13245). It's really a pity we still haven't the full set of CDS laws for all to see...

What it does not mean is that there would be no citizen input. Instead, there was ample opportunity to fit in public discussion at all stages. Ironically, I had suggested one way of bringing in more democracy to the planning process, in this case, defining the overall characteristics of the next region to be implemented, on a thread... four years old. What region was that? Guess what! Aye... it's still the very same one we're discussing right now, our 6th region!

About the same time, it was established that the CDS would keep short-term plans (adding a new region) and long-term plans (updating the GMP) separate (see what Cindy Ecksol says at the end of http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 77&p=13056). Again, this is pure expansionist ideology: do not attempt to stall expansion processes by throwing bureaucracy at it :) Instead, allow people to discuss as much as they wish for the future and the long-term, but keep rolling out those desperately-needed regions :)

Four years, and we have returned to the conservative views — eternally discuss and discuss, stall all processes, get mired in a sea of bureaucracy and words, but stop all attempts of growth. Keep it small and cozy, keep as many people out of the CDS as possible. Four years!

Anyway... the current legislative problem is that we don't have the 'New Guild' anymore. It has disbanded. We have, instead, a 'Current Guild', also a NGO, but operating under a different charter. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't have any official status regarding operations in the CDS; it just 'looks' like it has 'some' remote connection with the historical two guilds (the first one was a branch of government; the second one was a NGO incorporated in the CDS with a well-defined role) because it shares the same name. But it has no mandate to keep the General Masterplan current or start discussing it — or approving anything. In fact, all the legislation of the past, which delegated functions to the old 'New Guild', does not apply any more. Fortunately, this doesn't create a legislative vacuum — we have a provision in the Constitution that the Executive 'grandfathers' any role formerly given to the guild, in the case it has been abolished/extinguished. So, technically, the Chancellor could formally give some status to the 'Current Guild' if he so wished. I would have some qualms with that — because the 'Current Guild' operates in such a different way — but legally, I think that would be possible (I'd have to get some input of the SC about that).

What happened to post-2008 GMP discussions is that they were never formally released as valid documents with legal and binding status, except for the one including the Al Andaluz regions. After the merger, all we have is the 2008 GMP, even though I would certainly consider a document showing the post-merger CDS/AA, deleting the AA regions, as a valid GMP (but I would still ask the RA to approve it!). Since we don't have a procedure in place for approving a new GMP, it's not even enough to say 'let's bring the GMP up to date'. Legally, there is no entity any more which has the power to update the GMP or make it binding. The RA could certainly approve a new GMP, but first it would have to formally delegate the elaboration of an update to someone (or some organisation), revoke a few bills in the process, and add a few more. Then we could update the GMP and start working from that. And then the Chancellor could invoke NL 8-2 and go ahead with a new region, without further delay.

Four years, however, changed a lot.

Now some clarifications to Cadence. The Monastery and Locus Amoenus regions most certainly conform to the 2008 GMP. Just look at the clusters that it defines; both are in-theme. One might argue that LA's redevelopment to become 'Tuscany' instead of 'Ancient Roman/Greek' is stretching the interpretation of the cluster it is supposed to belong to, but that might be a technicality. It's more a 'reinterpretation' of an existing theme instead of being a completely different theme.

I believe that the 'confusion' is that somehow the GMP is supposed to reflect the way the CDS looks like, and, as such, requires change and adaptation. But that's not its purpose — the role of the GMP is to plan the future, not to record the present. As such, the 2008 GMP (or the post-merger CDS/AA GMP, without the AA regions) definitely still applies!

As for making 'adding a new region' a campaign promise, oh yes :) You can count on me for that; I believe I haven't run for the RA without promising at least one new region in the term I got elected :) (But of course the RA is democratic, and a promise is just that — a promise to propose legislation, actual approval is up to all the RA members, obviously)

On the other hand, I'm always appalled at the way people are always talking about rushing, rushing, rushing. We've been discussing the 6th region for over four years now! I mean... Cadence, honestly, how many more years do you wish to discuss before you are satisfied that we're not 'rushing' things? I have always complained that a new region took us, on average, a year of discussion (even taking into account NL 8-2 and 8-4 which allow a much faster turnaround). That was way, way, way too much for my expansionist ideology; a month of discussion would be what I consider reasonable. But ok, I could live with the 'one region per term' rule — under protest, of course, but I would accept it. I cannot tolerate the idea of only one region every year. But... four years of discussion... until we get a 6th region... that's over the top... and I'm still being accused of wishing to rush things?!?

Real-world governments can plan whole airports costing a billion dollars in less time than that!

So, please, you know I'm a reasonable person. But I would also like to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the CDS in 2014. At this rate, we'll only manage to open the 10th year celebrations... in 2020 :)

Last edited by Gwyneth Llewelyn on Fri May 09, 2014 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed bad bbCode

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

Thanks for the long analysis, Gwyn. :) So, we have a problem. The only officially recognized GMP is the version of 2008, which the New Guild already didn't consider sufficient and started to improve it. Now we face the situation, where we need a new sim, but have only the old GMP and don't have any recognized body, which would finish the update process.

The problem wtih the old GMP is that it sets challenging and even bit contradicting topographical constraints for the NFS 2 (a.k.a. NFS West) sim. When Monastery sim topography was initially planned, it was made to have a shore in its west edge. That would have been in harmony with GMP 2008. However, the terrain of the sim was modified so, that Monastary sim's west edge continued the east-west slopy without bending it. Now, if we want to continue with the NFS 2 sim, we face some challenges. According to the GMP 2008, the NW and SW corners of the sim should be at sea-level. But can they?

Gwyn is right, that if we start improving and updating the old GMP, the process may take months or even over one year to finish. If our objective is to get NFS West ready quickly, I propose the following approach.

  1. We start the public contest about the design of the new sim.

  2. Designers ignore GMP 2008 completely and try make the topography, theme and population density of the new sim to match with the terrain of Monastery and Neufreistadt sims.

  3. After the new sim is created and finished, we try find/nominate a body, which can update the old GMP

  4. The next sim after the NFS 2 follows the updated GMP

Let's hope, our new sim doesn't take years to finish. :)

User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

I drew quickly an approximation of the different topographies according to GMP 2008, GMP 2009 and the current terrain. Hopefully this can clarify the problem described above. Please, pay special attention to the border between Monastery and the new sim south from it. We can't follow GMP 2008 to design the new sim.

Image

Here is also one more picture of the GMP 2009 featuring not only Al Andalus merger but also the mountain area around the Neufreistadt.

Image
May 2009. The group was discussing about the three proposal how to join CDS and Al Andalus together. Moon had prepared wonderful sculptie reliefs to demonstrate the proposals.

The New Guild had an updated vision of our expansion. Ignoring it would be unfortunate and result major topographical problems.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Beware taking what Gwyn says at face value. As she occasionally points out herself, she is a partial and biased commentator and her recollection of events is, ahem, somewhat distorted.

Her account of the formation of the New Guild under Moon's leadership and its relation to the GMP is not one I recognise and the elevation of 'transparency' and 'inclusivity' are just politically motivated digs at the current Guild - which as a *Non* Government Organisation can organise itself any way it wants. The NG was, in my view, a quasi-corporatist abomination. Not as bad as the original Artisan's Collective which truly was a corporatist abomination but... only half way there! The whole notion of an 'RA chartered NGO' is repulsive to me. The countries where government's approve NGOs, giving them the title Government Approved NGOs (or GONGOs) include such modern bastions of human rights and democracy as China. Personally, I think it's a step forward that the current Guild is an NGO in name and reality. Of course that also means that the Guild cannot be given any special privileges over other collectives of builders or even individual citizens.

Gwyn also distorts the history to suit her ends. The GMP never led to a drama-free expansion. *Every* expansion has had its share of drama. The original expansion to CN was probably the least contentious - we ran a competition for the concept and CN was the only one submitted! Alpine Meadow was a huge drama-fest! We had to deal with Rose Springvale's 'vision' for the expansion and resistance to any alteration of that vision. I recall a massive fight with Arria over inclusion of the Monastery (it was originally located in AM sim). Then we had the debate over LA. I recall that Cleo (in her former alt ThePrincessParisi) steamrollered 'Roman' as the theme 'cos that sells'. Look how that turned out! And Monastery only got built due to Arria's drive in pushing the project forward and demonstrating that it would be unlikely to cost the CDS a dime.

"Long term planning" by the way is the responsibility of the Representative Assembly. Have a look at the Constitution. It would be good to see the next RA devote some time to this aspect of its responsibilities. Updating the GMP would be a good start! :)

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Timo Gufler
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: General Master Plan (GMP)

Post by Timo Gufler »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

The GMP never led to a drama-free expansion. *Every* expansion has had its share of drama. The original expansion to CN was probably the least contentious - we ran a competition for the concept and CN was the only one submitted! Alpine Meadow was a huge drama-fest! We had to deal with Rose Springvale's 'vision' for the expansion and resistance to any alteration of that vision. I recall a massive fight with Arria over inclusion of the Monastery (it was originally located in AM sim). Then we had the debate over LA. I recall that Cleo (in her former alt ThePrincessParisi) steamrollered 'Roman' as the theme 'cos that sells'. Look how that turned out! And Monastery only got built due to Arria's drive in pushing the project forward and demonstrating that it would be unlikely to cost the CDS a dime.

Thanks for refreshing our memories, Pat. If you browse the forum, you can see, that creation of every single sim resulted controversy, because people had different visions about them and they pushed their views aggressively.

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

"Long term planning" by the way is the responsibility of the Representative Assembly. Have a look at the Constitution. It would be good to see the next RA devote some time to this aspect of its responsibilities. Updating the GMP would be a good start! :)

I agree, that we should start updating the GMP. The major question is, that what plan to follow, if we want to build the new sim soon. GMP 2008 is no go. GMP 2009 is unfinished. We can either create the next sim based on our current terrain or wait for the GMP update. What do we want? :)

Post Reply

Return to “Sim and City Planning”