RCT Discussion / RCT Architecture

When describing screens or parks you'll read a lot of comments such as 'great architecture' or 'I don't really like the architecture, but the coaster looks nice'. Now here's my question: A lot of us seem to have our own ideas about what makes good or bad architecture in RCT. So I was wondering if some of you could take some time to describe what in your mind is good RCT architecture and what is bad. Use examples if you want or parks that you really enjoy, whatever you need. It seems to me that the term 'architecture' has become kind of a buzzword in RCT commentary and we're all basing our opinions on different defintions. In order to understand you crazy people better I'd like to know what you really like and really hate about so-called architecture in RCT. Who's first?

I look for Buildings that look nice, and have thoughtful detail on them. Not just slapped around fences and such. In rct1, patterns of repeating raised land blocks looked just fine, but I like to see really interesting, and unique stuff in rct2.

IMO good archy is usualy....... believable, as in, the kind you would see in real life. I also like bright archy, but not too bright, and the colours must match. To make good arcy in RCT2, the best thing you can do is go to google and do an image search for what ever the theme you wanna do and take pieces of buildings and structures from the pics and try to incorporate them into your archy. Also, differating archy is a must, i hate it when i see big, bulky and blocky buildings which have been slapped together with little or no thought put into them, and then the builder hopes the final product will look good. 9 times outa 10 it looks sheeeet.

Another thing which looks shit is when you see a box like building all on its own with just a little landscaping next to it. The best archy is large, extravagent (sp) and has many little structures by it to give it some extra blendyness (strange word lol)

One final note, you can usually tell how long a person has spent on archy by looking at it, and all most always the archy where the builder has spent a long time looking at it and improving it is the one which IMO is the best. The level of details will be much higher.

But at the end of the day we all have different tastes so there aint one single way to build the best archy, cos some ppl will like it, some wont. I generally go for large and detailed buildings, and completely despise blocky and plain ones.

Ok, I can only talk about RCT1.
One of the best architects to me is SACoasterFreak.
Good architecture to me means,
- fitting the theme (not making the same buildings in every section just with different colours)
- looking aesthetically (nice curves, thoughtfull buildings with nice colours and right heights)
- a good use of paths, rides or theming objects on buildings. (I hate buildings cramped with fences, various paths or virginia reels)

Parks with great architecture (in my opinion): Legends West, Moonlight Magic, IOAH, Tropico Horizons (though it tends to get too repetitive here)

Posix, not all buildings need curves. Some Architects like Wright (corkscrewed knows what i'm talking about) used edges almost all the time (exclude Guggenhim (sp?)). Zaha Hadid is an amazing arhictect, and her buildings all have sharp angles. Architecure does not have to be big to be beautiful, there are many small houses that are amazing, such as wright's falling water. IMO, RCT architecture just has to look good, fit its surrounding and theme. Personally, loud colours are out and make buildings look disgusting.

Thin arcitecture, not too many 2x2's pretty much makes it good for me. Eg, Butterfinger's tuff, or BGTKing

Here's my list of great archy elements...

1. wall and roof texture. No one wants a windowless, doorless, flat roofed buidling.
2. shape. Should be originally shaped. As Nate mentioned, curves help a lot.
3. colour. Honestly, dark architecture is not my cup of tea. I go crazy over bright buildings.
4. uniqueness. A block is not original. You want originality, look at anything from Pyro or Butterfinger.
5. detail. Spires, awnings, balconies help make buildings look great. This goes hand in hand with texture.

...and finally...

6. elements from nature! Look at some of Wright's stuff (like Fallingwater) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I like anything that comes into my own wacky head, to be honest. Apart from that i'm a fan of buildings that aren't afraid to be anything.

For example:
Natelox's Marriot Hotel in DDI is one of the best I can think of. It's something you wouldn't often see, it's colourful, it's angular and it's bloody good.

Now an example of something bad...
I'm gonna have to pick on Butterfinger again sorry mate. I think the Yucatan area in UCSR is disastrous, as is a lot of the architecture in the park. The buildings are swamped with other things, don't flow, are trying to be realistic but failing....saying that, the Jaws area did have some pretty cool stands.

My favourite architecture? Erwindale, of course. Apart from that, i'd say Hotel Yorba, because it's the largest piece of architecture i've ever built, and i'm very proud of it.

I'm a big admirer of Posix's buildings in his arabian area in Atlas. Yes.

I like very random architecture in RCT or RCT2. Here are my preferences:

RCT:
Good use of windows, not overused but must be used in some places
Pathways as roofs. I love this, especially as balconies etc.
Originality. It's no use copying someone else's styles. Just go with what you feel is right
Good use of flowers around buildings

RCT2:
Some nice 'divider' buildings (E.g Tall square buildings with flowers on top)
Some curves, but only a few
Roofs that match the walls. I hate multicoloured roofs
Colours that match the area. Since we have more variety of colours we can make them match the scenery. Make good use of it!
Not too OTT. Keep your buildings interesting but not too complex. If you build giant areas of the same type of roof or building it just looks far too messy.
BALCONIES! I hate it when people build boring square buildings with simple walls and a roof plonked on top. Divide it up a bit.
Doors and windows. Walls on their own look awful. Don't be afraid to put doors where they're not meant to go, it can work amazingly well.

Alright so I have a confession to make. This topic was really just an excuse for me to rant about architecture which I'm finding more and more is the most important thing to me in park design. I wanted to give others a chance to express their opinion first though. Here's my thoughts on RCT architecture:

Here's what I like to see:
Unusual roof patterns instead of boring symmetrical slopes. (look at any of Joe Holland's parks)
Incorporating raised pathways especially with wooden supports (seen in a lot of Joe Holland and vTd's stuff)
Fences where appropriate but not on everything
Multiple levels on some buildings
Tiered flat surfaces (look at IOA Hollywood)
Asymetrical window placement
Colors and textures that compliment each other
Clever use of the landscaping tool
Coaster track used effectively not haphazardly(ie Support beams, roofing)
Combinations of textures or elements I haven't seen before.

Here's what I don't like to see:
Over reliance on simple shapes (2x2 flat blocks or sloped blocks for example)
Every tile covered in a pathway
Every tile covered in fences
The same basic shapes repeated throughout the park
Too many windows
Theming objects everywhere (open space is not a bad thing)
Bizarre random mixes of textures and colors
Awnings on every other building
Everything symmetrical=boring
Clumps of identical or similar buildings used as filler

Lately the architecture I like the most is very asymetrical. Blocky buildings can look good but I'm getting tired of them myself. I use to build that way (Cedar Creek was almost all blocky buildings) but now I prefer more natural flowing shapes. I've always admired Joe Holland's ability to recreate real life buildings using basic shapes like the land tool, pathways, and a few coaster pieces. Simplicity when done right is always much more impressive to me than clutter. Schuessler is the master of this mindset. The architecture in IOA Hollywood is very simple but also very effective I think. When in doubt, simplify. All those walkways, pathways, and windows don't fool me. If the building is boring underneath all that crap it's still boring with it, just more cluttered and chaotic. Asymetry does not mean randomness, it means a controlled balance of symmetrical and asymmetrical shapes. Look at the Ancient themed section in Tropico Cove for a great balance of symmetry and asymetry. Color and texture are very important. Mixing all of the textures and colors in bizarre combinations is the easiest way to make your park ugly. Some colors and textures look good together, they want to be together, so make them happy. I agree with VooDoo that you need to find source material to motivate your architecture otherwise you're just applying the same tricks to a new theme and that gets old fast. Look at some of the park recreations by Greg Reese or better yet look at an actual park map and try to recreate some of those buildings in RCT. That's a good way to discover new real-life architectural patterns and expand your architecture's variety. And lastly and most importantly, know your theme. If your architecture isn't appropriate to the theme than it doesn't matter how good it is, it's still bad park design. Some parks or sections don't really have a theme but if you have a definite theme to an area, the architecture should be appropriate.

Here's how I do RCT2 archy...


Have the strip of buildings planned out for the footprint (2x2, 3x3, 2x3, etc.)

Know what your theme is and use the apropriate wall textures

Never make a building bigger that 3x4 in footprint, unless you have to. (diagonal buildings mess with this too much.)

You should have at least three general "types" of buildings, but by varrying the colors, rooves, fences on rooves, corner objects, corner object color, etc. every building is different. (To see what I mean, get a preview of the upcoming RCTI park Digital Domains)

Buildings shouldn't hide the paths, unless that's what you're going for (naughty me...)


Um, yeah. I've got my own slew of general building, and it helps too. My key is variation, and hiding blockiness by adding multiple small buildings. Of course this changes for coaster stations.

Here's what I don't like to see:
Over reliance on simple shapes (2x2 flat blocks or sloped blocks for example)
Every tile covered in a pathway
Every tile covered in fences
The same basic shapes repeated throughout the park
Too many windows
Theming objects everywhere (open space is not a bad thing)
Bizarre random mixes of textures and colors
Awnings on every other building
Everything symmetrical=boring
Clumps of identical or similar buildings used as filler

Argh! *hides womb*

All of those apply, especially the colours.

*reminds Ed of Erwindale*

maybe that'll keep him quiet....

There's nothing wrong with bright colors. It's randomly mixed colors that don't go together that I don't like. From what I've seen of w.o.m.b. the colors look pretty good to me. And anyway, there's more to RCT than architecture. Not everyone can be Joe Holland - I appreciate parkmakers who experiment with fantasy elements too. I like both realism and fantasy (well semi-fantasy anyway). It just so happens that my preferences in architecture lean more towards the realistic but I'm gradually becoming more fantasy myself so I'm pretty open-minded at this point. I still think good realism takes more skill and practice though than good fantasy.

Someone else reply dammit. Tell me I've full of shit, I don't care. Let's try to actually have a discussion here. You people do play RCT from time to time right? So stop working on your brilliant parks and waste some time talking to me instead! I say Joe Holland was and is the master of RCT architecture. As for RCT2 I don't know yet but Purple Pill Heights was pretty amazing so I gotta say Toon Towner and The Judge have got my attention.

They obviously don't have anything to say Too scared to argue with the greatest!

I say there's only so much asymmetry you can have. Sure, it's good to break from the standard windows and building shapes, but if you go too far then it looks like you've lost your way. You're just messing around with no real aim.

I'm hopeless at emulating real life things, which is why ALL of my RCT stuff comes from the imagination - I pick a theme that's dear to me and build whatever I think is good. If you told me to recreate a certain building style from somewhere i'd be stumped.

I'd certainly like to hear what some of the people up on that 'list' of iris's think about Architecture, seeing as they're supposed to be the best at it!

I've been thinking about this and hesitant to reply because I'm not sure what I like till I see it. I've liked dark style, colourful, abstract building shapes, standard buildings based on the 2X2 square pattern. What I think really makes a difference is a nice blend of wall textures, building heights and enough variance that the architecture doesn't get boring. I like colour, but it's definitely not what separates good and bad architecture. I like creative use of rides, but not a reliance of the rides. Of course windows are good, but thoughtful placement is a good thing and again not what separates good from bad.

Basically what architecture comes down to in RCT would seem to be the design of the building and not the decorations on that building. If the actual building design is not good, you can dress it up with fences, windows and awnings all you like and it isn't going to look good. If the building design looks good before adding these features you know you can add a minimal amount to accent the building design. Building should not have to rely on accents to look good. If you look at some of the better parkmakers, they use very few accents on their building (Fatha' and Nate come to mind). Just enough to accentuate the design of the building, but the buildings do not rely on these features.

I guess that's my opinion.

a building should not be dressed with windows/awnings, but they should be part of the entire thing.

Alright so I have a confession to make. This topic was really just an excuse for me to rant about architecture which I'm finding more and more is the most important thing to me in park design. I wanted to give others a chance to express their opinion first though. Here's my thoughts on RCT architecture:

Here's what I like to see:
Unusual roof patterns instead of boring symmetrical slopes. (look at any of Joe Holland's parks)
Incorporating raised pathways especially with wooden supports (seen in a lot of Joe Holland and vTd's stuff)
Fences where appropriate but not on everything
Multiple levels on some buildings
Tiered flat surfaces (look at IOA Hollywood)
Asymetrical window placement
Colors and textures that compliment each other
Clever use of the landscaping tool
Coaster track used effectively not haphazardly(ie Support beams, roofing)
Combinations of textures or elements I haven't seen before.

Here's what I don't like to see:
Over reliance on simple shapes (2x2 flat blocks or sloped blocks for example)
Every tile covered in a pathway
Every tile covered in fences
The same basic shapes repeated throughout the park
Too many windows
Theming objects everywhere (open space is not a bad thing)
Bizarre random mixes of textures and colors
Awnings on every other building
Everything symmetrical=boring
Clumps of identical or similar buildings used as filler

Lately the architecture I like the most is very asymetrical. Blocky buildings can look good but I'm getting tired of them myself. I use to build that way (Cedar Creek was almost all blocky buildings) but now I prefer more natural flowing shapes. I've always admired Joe Holland's ability to recreate real life buildings using basic shapes like the land tool, pathways, and a few coaster pieces. Simplicity when done right is always much more impressive to me than clutter. Schuessler is the master of this mindset. The architecture in IOA Hollywood is very simple but also very effective I think. When in doubt, simplify. All those walkways, pathways, and windows don't fool me. If the building is boring underneath all that crap it's still boring with it, just more cluttered and chaotic. Asymetry does not mean randomness, it means a controlled balance of symmetrical and asymmetrical shapes. Look at the Ancient themed section in Tropico Cove for a great balance of symmetry and asymetry. Color and texture are very important. Mixing all of the textures and colors in bizarre combinations is the easiest way to make your park ugly. Some colors and textures look good together, they want to be together, so make them happy. I agree with VooDoo that you need to find source material to motivate your architecture otherwise you're just applying the same tricks to a new theme and that gets old fast. Look at some of the park recreations by Greg Reese or better yet look at an actual park map and try to recreate some of those buildings in RCT. That's a good way to discover new real-life architectural patterns and expand your architecture's variety. And lastly and most importantly, know your theme. If your architecture isn't appropriate to the theme than it doesn't matter how good it is, it's still bad park design. Some parks or sections don't really have a theme but if you have a definite theme to an area, the architecture should be appropriate.

I agree with mostof the stuff there. MOST! Some things I disagree with are...

Incorporating raised pathways especially with wooden supports (seen in a lot of Joe Holland and vTd's stuff)
Well, my style is usually very neat, and I don't use this, but I do like them in some cases. Messier parkmakers like Nate and Butter (don't take this wrong) can pull this off very well, as it flows with their style. But in some cases, it looks reeeaaally bad (would look bad in Markham Plaza!).

Coaster track used effectively not haphazardly(ie Support beams, roofing)
See above. Guys like Pyro can pull this off well, but it's a disaster in some parks.

Bizarre random mixes of textures and colors
I think this shows creativity and courage (okay, that's not the right word in this situation, but you know what I mean). I think I pull this off well.

a building should not be dressed with windows/awnings, but they should be part of the entire thing.

Of course they have to integrate into the building and not look like add-ons.

To see what I mean, go into DDI, remove window, path, and ride additions from some of the buildings and look. The architecture is still interesting and the park still looks good. This is what I define as good architecture, there is a good blend of roof and wall textures, the building layouts, height changes, and roof slopes are interesting to look at. Yes the park looks much better with the integration of more architectural elements, but the basic architectural design can stand alone and still look good.

Toon - I wouldn't like to do that in Universal's Outrage - some of the buildings would disappear completely!

I don't think that awnings and the like are just superficial. I think they are often used to enhance a building that otherwise would be mundane, turning it into a building that would perhaps be better than a very good unadorned building.

I'm a fan of using coaster track, as most of you have probably seen. For me it adds another dimension to what is possible - vastly increasing the capacity for novelty and, ultimately, fun.