• @GoofSchmoofer
    link
    English
    425 minutes ago

    The best part about this is that this will give blackrock more homes to purchase with cash to the rent out to people at ridiculous prices. /s

    Sorry, I’ve become way to cynical these days about virtually everything, I need to go touch grass.

  • @pHr34kY
    link
    English
    31 hour ago

    That area should hold about 400 people, not 40,000. The trees won’t survive unless they can see the sky.

  • Krik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    143 hours ago

    Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park? People love green stuff, you know.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      5 minutes ago

      People love green stuff, you know.

      Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!

    • @FooBarrington
      link
      English
      82 hours ago

      Why does it need to be a dedicated park? They’re not proposing getting rid of all the green stuff. Even better than having green stuff some distance away is living in the middle of the green stuff.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 hours ago

      Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park?

      Because rich people need money to build a bigger golf course somewhere else

  • stebo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    104 hours ago

    but then where should the rich people go golfing?

  • Sʏʟᴇɴᴄᴇ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    246 hours ago

    Not sure how it works in the US but here in Oz (where water scarcity is always present in our collective psyche) golf courses are usually placed on flood plains where it would be dangerous/too expensive to build housing. In addition most allow people to walk through them and many even allow dog walkers so they have quite a lot of public amenity.

    I would still prefer if they were just designated as public parks rather than having huge swathes of grass that needed frequent watering, but they’re not nearly as bad as most make them out to be.

    • @Agent641
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      50 minutes ago

      Public golf courses are one of the best things about Oz. They provide a forest island for birds and mammals among the suburbs. Many golf courses have large swathes of natural bushland around them. They are often run by the local council, and are hence not for profit, and generally they are very cheap to play.

      They make most of their money via selling beer and expensive golf clubs.

      Turn them over to property developers, and they’ll pave it with cheaply built single dwelling houses and flog them for way too much money resulting in just more urban desert and padded the obese wallets of billionaires.

      The revenue earned by the golf course that is used to offset local parks and recs costs would otherwise be gained by taxing the local residents through land rates.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      43 hours ago

      In Germany most courses only have a few public walkways and if you leave them security will escort you right out

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      175 hours ago

      Yeah, here in the US, golf courses can be extremely wasteful. There’s two golf courses on my drive into the city, one is on a river floodplain, the other is a HOA golf course full of sprinklers that could absolutely be more housing. If I go the other way, there’s another HOA golf course that could be housing too. So, to start with, there’s three golf courses in a 15km radius.

      One of the HOA ones is exclusive access to the surrounding retirement community, the other HOA one doesn’t have a fence or anything, but idk if they chase people off. The one on the floodplain you have to pay to access the grounds.

  • @urata
    link
    English
    3110 hours ago

    I work at a golf course and I’d rather be doing something meaningful like building homes so this post speaks to me directly.

    Unfortunately the big thing lately is we’ve been dropping a bunch of trees.

  • @karpintero
    link
    English
    14513 hours ago

    Let’s also get rid of golf courses in arid deserts in the midst of droughts

    • @PugJesusOP
      link
      English
      12413 hours ago

      You had me at “Let’s get rid of golf courses”

      • mosiacmango
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        This is a municipal course as well, so Seattle could literally do this. The city government doesn’t want to.

        This heavily neglected sidewalk, next to the fenced off golf course, alongside a high speed and very busy highway onramp just 2 blocks from a light rail stop, tells you just how much the city cares about the area.

        There is no excuse not to cleanup and widen this sidewalk except apathy and malaise from the city.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7312 hours ago

    You’re probably not going to save 95% of the trees given the major earthworks likely needed for managing sewage, stormwater, and other utilities. You’ll probably save most of them, though.

    40k looks pretty optimistic for the size and number of buildings, too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 hours ago

      I don’t know if it’s the same in USA but with all these new regulations building houses these days is an environmental disaster

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      910 hours ago

      probably not going to save 95% of the trees

      I was wondering that too… maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        259 hours ago

        I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.

        • @PugJesusOP
          link
          English
          199 hours ago

          I supposed they meant “And this amount of space is still available for greenery” rather than “These, specific, trees will be preserved”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Depends how many floors they have but yeah, that would be quite high density at 60k/km²

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2912 hours ago

    If you just repurpose for housing you just wind up with 40,000 people needing transit and overloading the system you’re trying to promote.

    We need to think beyond housing and towards having communities that largely provide the needs of the people living with them. Shops, offices, other non-office/shop jobs, and recreational activities need to be considered as well.

    • @MisterFrog
      link
      English
      15 minutes ago

      The neat part is that businesses can be in the bottom couple of floors. Though often this doesn’t seem to be done unless it’s the CBD…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    810 hours ago

    Most suburban streets are 50 feet wide, many suburban front yards are 50 feet deep. That’s a wasted space 150 feet wide and however long the street is long. Think of how much housing could be built in that space if you tore up that road, and in its place put a pair of alleyways housing in the middle

    • @ChokingHazard
      link
      English
      142 minutes ago

      I would argue closer to 30, unless you’re including all the easement and sidewalks?

  • themeatbridge
    link
    English
    812 hours ago

    Not for nothing, but this wouldn’t fly in the USA. You’d need to replace most of those trees with roads.

    Or better yet, reduce the number of housing units and keep the trees.