1386
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] karpintero@lemmy.world 180 points 1 month ago

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

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 159 points 1 month ago

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

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 98 points 1 month 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.

[-] Sergio@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 month 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?

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 32 points 1 month ago

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

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sylence@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 month 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.

[-] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

That's if they are even build able. Some areas on floodplains and marshes that serve as a local soak for stormwater, hence the water hazards. Some are built on landfills that contain mu icipal waste or even asbestos, hence you can't risk putting houses on them where someone might dig up the asbestos or waste. Turning them into a revenue-generating forest parkland is one of the few good things you can do with that land.

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.

I used to hate on them a lot before I learned that the economics of public courses is way different to that of private ones. There are still some private courses, and I wouldn't be opposed to these being taken back into public hands and/or converted into affordable housing. To the gallows with the greedy exclusive fucktillionaires.

[-] doktormerlin@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago

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

[-] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 month ago

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

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month 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.

[-] The_Caretaker@urbanists.social 13 points 1 month ago

@FooBarrington @Krik
Close the asphalt streets. Rip them up and plant trees and grass. A 9 foot wide pathway for pedestrians and bicycles in the middle. Subways and streetcars to transport people from one green belt to the next one road with access for emergency vehicles, public service vehicles and deliveries circling every 9 square blocks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago

Look at the picture. There'll be not much green left. They'll only leave the trees alone and based on the figure of 40 000 new residents the buildings will be taller than the trees. I don't think that is great.

Cities are more livable when there are parks every few blocks. I mean big ones, at least half a mile long. People need nature, not a tree here and there.

[-] biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

People love green stuff, you know.

Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] urata@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month 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.

[-] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 month ago

BuT wHeRe WouLd i PaRk mY cAr?!?!!?

[-] rolling_resistance@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago

That's the neat part, you don't.

[-] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 month ago

car
car go
car go bye
cargo bike

[-] puppycat 10 points 1 month ago

if I saw this on a billboard/poster I'd have a new bike

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Truly the poet of our generation 🥲

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month 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.

[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

We need to go touch pitchforks.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But that runs counter to my need as a developer to bulldoze the entire area, build mcmansions 6 inches apart from eachother and at the barest mimimum of code (and perhaps even lower with a $$friendly$$ inspector), and then plant like a grand total of 5 trees that wont survive the first year.

Oh, and also pave everything over. Gotta pave everything over. No one wants green space! /s

[-] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

When I was first committing to my no automobile lifestyle, one of the first things that struck me was the pavement. Fucking everywhere.

Next time your about town , take a mental picture. Then subtract the parking lots. The huge road. Put the buildings closer together. Make a nice bikelane, something just wide enough to get a fire engine down. Plant some trees. Pretty nice right?

Instead we have salted earth. It really is just rude to the earth. Fuck your car!

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

All I want is the infrastructure to be more convenient. I cant walk anywhere unless I want to spend an hour+ walking, which is just impractical when i need to run and grab some fucking garlic powder real quick in the middle of dinner.

Neighborhoods should have special commercial zoning inside of them to allow small shops, cafes, bakeries, etc

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 month ago

When there's no more golf you'll know the rich fucks are gone.

[-] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago

but then where should the rich people go golfing?

[-] mouserat@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 month ago
[-] stormeuh@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago
[-] sommerset@thelemmy.club 13 points 1 month ago

This is literally how ussr built things

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 13 points 1 month ago

Plus you can live in a pentagon! Just not the Pentagon.

[-] FleetingTit@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago

Now add in mixed use zoning, and affordable housing units and this could be a winner

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 11 points 1 month 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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] jhulten@infosec.pub 11 points 1 month ago

This is Jackson Park golf course, owned by Seattle Parks and Rec. It is one of the cheapest ways to play the game in all of Seattle.

It opened May 12, 1930. That's before the Interstate and the light rail.

There are plenty of places to shit on golf courses. This one is probably a miss. Without mixed use space, this area has been a heavy car use zone with low walkability. The section from the freeway north of the park is also a steep hill, reducing the accessibility of the area.

Additionally, the plans provided do not meet the requirements for development. Specifically, how are you going to get a fire truck to the six story buildings in the middle. Is there enough space for.emergeny services to maneuver and to keep a fire from jumping buildings.

Talk and MS Paint is cheap. Good urban planning in not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago

Same weirdos who defend the horrid use of land will say "Fuck off we're full" to immigrants trying to not die from wars and ethnic cleansing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago

Golf courses aren't inherently bad, but I think just about every one out there is weirdly exclusive and definitely wastes water.

Disc golf is a good example of a sport that doesn't monopolize space. It's built into existing trails. Generally speaking the public can't walk on golf cart trails (I'm sure there are exceptions)

[-] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago

There are city-owned golf course around me that I presume aren't that exclusive (I dunno, I don't play). That said, they're also implicated in draining all sorts of toxins into the local waterways.

I think they are inherently bad. They waste water, their turf needs constant care that puts nasty stuff into the rest of the water supply, and the space can't be used for anything else. It's not merely a game, either; it's the defacto way for rich people to network and talk about how they're fucking the rest of us.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

What if we just altered zoning laws so they don't restrict high-density residential buildings?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] don@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah but then rich fucks wouldn’t have a place all to themselves to be rich fucks, so that’s a fuck you, poors, just be rich like us, thanks.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1386 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

11087 readers
406 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS