• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours 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

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      My local public golf course was closed and sold to developers a few years back.

      Promises were made to the community of keeping all the trees and lots of green space, as there was vicious community opposition.

      The developers have of course instead done what you suggest, and every house is crammed in next to each other just like every other new suburb. Its still in progress but it looks like once they’re done you wouldn’t even know it used to be a golf course.

      This meme is so stupid because it doesn’t present an even remotely possible outcome. A far better option is to keep the public golf courses for people to spend time outdoors and to provide homes for wildlife - and then remove regulations limiting building heights to encourage multi-storey development.

      Build up, not out - because once green space becomes houses it never changes back.

    • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours 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

  • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    6 hours ago

    housing

    no parking, all walkable BS

    You people just want to give a huge middle finger to every single person with mobility issues, don’t you?

    Fuck you.

    • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I’m standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.

    • drkt@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I have mobility issues and car infrastructure does nothing for me and in many cases makes my life harder.

      Nobody said you couldn’t build paths between places.

      Fuck you.

      • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        6 hours ago

        For people with no assistance that just have to walk, it’s ableist and hateful. And if you really had mobility issues, you’d be against these dystopian car-hating people, too.

    • Carl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Fun fact: massive parking lots also cause problems for those with mobility issues. So do really wide roads. Dense and therefore walkable city infrastructure is also the most disability-friendly city infrastructure, full stop.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Why wouldn’t it make more sense to provide mobility assistance like motorized chairs for the 1% of users who need such to get them to and from transit options including parking even if its not house side.

  • quoll@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    or we could not sacrifice our very limited green space to property developers overlords?!

    i’m not saying don’t use green space better… but keep it green.

    ps: i live in a very high density area and love it… but build up not out.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours 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.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 day ago

            A fairly generic lady and that’s what you took from that guy’s comment?

              • Soup@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 hours ago

                I’m a fairly generic looking person, we are more than our looks. She has nice glasses and isn’t unattractive or anything it’s just there’s basically nothing there to tell you where the picture is taken. There aren’t even visible brands anywhere.

                Other than maybe being able to guess the pacific northwest based those maybe being barefoot shoes, which is still a reach, what else is there?

                Also damn, going after me for being “cruel” while reducing her to a stereotype of her city? On a post about sidewalks I mean fuck, who asked you anyway?

                • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  Sorry, I didn’t mean any offense but it really feels like you’re trying to start a fight here and I don’t want any of that.

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

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

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

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

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 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

  • urata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours 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…

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    18 hours ago

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

    • Polygondenimland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      In the United States of America, the average lot size for a single-family home is 0.19 acres (which is equivalent to 8,176 square feet). This math means that around 5 average-sized single-family homes can fit into one acre of land.

      (Source)

      So even if we’re talking regular single-family homes you can already build 800.

      Many trees do very well in the shade, as long as their crowns get sun part of the day. Leave some room between buildings and you can easily build 4-6 stories tall and still have trees in between. You can easily fit 20 apartments per acre that way. That’s about 3200 apartments. With 3 people per household that’s close to 10k people.

      I agree 40k is optimistic, but 400 is way pessimistic

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Look at me on my .23 acres, essentially a sprawling compound. It’s really a perfect size.

        I don’t think the setup here is at all realistic. ADA would probably have some qualms with it. I have seen golf courses repurposed for residential though, and it’s great.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Oh, they didn’t change that, people living there need to get real good at dodging golf balls.