They have corrected the removal mechanics, but we also have to be cautious when redeveloping. You can't just dezone entire blocks and not expect to be left with hundreds or even thousands of newly unhoused cims. It's also necessary to provide transit to the edge of your city. If a cim has no job, how might you expect them to be able to pay a toll on a bus? In my cities, I subsidize free mass transit across the city.
Similarly, they've turned off the firehose of newly unhoused adult cims who can't find work or affordable housing. Before, when cims became adults they were automatically kicked out of their parents' homes. Now they stay until they have saved enough to afford their own home and if they can't find one they will move off-map and become commuters.
Here are two saves that seem to have solved the problem:
- My Sashaway County save is located here: https://mods.paradoxplaza.com/mods/90111/Any - Using that tax system, I have the number of unhoused cims down to 0.6% of the population (1,195 out of 200k+) with unemployment post-anniversary-patch around 6-7%.
- Another vanilla save that I've viewed is Middlesfjord by Sunny Scunny: https://mods.paradoxplaza.com/mods/80658/Any- I believe that city has over 100K with unhoused percent rate at 0.1% (my working memory may be off there, however).
----------------------------------------------- perhaps TLDR -----------------------------------------------
They underlying logical problem in the game is that if you build nice cities with lots of services and amenities, cims will want to live there. That means that even when they become unhoused, persuading a cim to want to leave is challenging. Also, (I believe) that cims tend to look for homes that correlate with their education level and earnings. Also, we tend to zone in a way that reinforces this ... lower-density and affordable housing near industry areas and high-density residential mixed in with office towers, etc. etc. -- so pathfinding has something to do with this as well. An uneducated cim, obviously will not be able to afford to live in a high-density apartment building, nor will there be one located near their job working in an ore mine. Conversely, better-educated cims with office jobs will tend to prefer high-density residential towers for their domiciles.
Two things can help with this general problem: (1) build a breadth of housing that roughly correlates with your economic sector choices; and (2) adopt a tax regime that provides some negative extrinsic motivators to leave the city when they become unhoused.
With respect to the latter...
- I tend to set taxes for all of my job sectors based on the revenue they generate. Higher-generating sectors I tax closer to 10% and lower-generating sectors I tax closer to zero or even negative if necessary. My goal is a balanced, self-sufficient economy that doesn't have to rely on many imports. Offices, I tax at 7-8%.
- I use a progressive tax system for residential ... generally-speaking, I tend to avoid an overly office-oriented economy, so I always have a higher number of unhoused highly educated workers. Also, education level tends to correlate with earnings, so I tax the highest educated workers the most and uneducated workers the least.
Here is a screen cap showing what this looks like in my city:
View attachment 1270993
Hope this helps!
![[Delta ²k5]](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/CSL_Parklife/s/PLavatar1.png){kind=avatar}
