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.
Okay, so put a road or two through the middle for emergency access. The walk ability part is supposed to be solved by the light rail they mentioned.
Michael Moore in one of his books suggested we repurpose golf courses into public housing. They tend to be in better school systems to begin with so there’s an added bonus.
There isn’t any context on where this is, but:
- there aren’t enough golf courses to really impact housing supply
- parks and recreational facilities also serve a societal good assuming they’re accessible and serve the community as a whole
- golf courses aren’t usually located along transit
1 and 3 are not good reasons not to try something like this. 2 feels like bad faith because this isn’t either of those things, it’s a golf course. Less than a quarter of golf courses in the US are freely open to the public, and a quarter of them are members only. That’s thousands of golf courses that are taking up space/land and water and returning next to nothing of value to the community or the environment, or worse than nothing in many cases.
Source for numbers: https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/study-percentage-of-public-vs-private-courses-in-the-us/
There are enough to reduce housing supply issues.
Private golf courses provide little to no benefit to anyone especially after we factor in the environmental costs.
Golf courses not being on pubic transit is the only part I agree with.
Just as soon as somebody buys the LA and and develops it into affordable homes. Because I’m sure as hell never gonna be rich enough to fix a stupid golf course into something useful.
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)
I do. It is a giant waste of fucking space and resources so that some rich people can enjoy hitting a ball around.
The worst part is usually they take an undeveloped scenic natural space and turn it into a waste of water that pollutes from all the lawn chemicals.
Disc golf is just sticking a few goals into otherwise typical park. You are gently tossing a soft disc over maybe 60-90 meters so you don’t need to be extra careful to make the way clear.
Golf by its nature demands huge amounts of space for few people to enjoy. Further the landscaping and irrigation demands on a golf course are immense. You can’t have too many things on a course or people walking around, because a pretty hard ball comes flying from 200 meters away.
Minigolf is the superior and family-friendly alternative to golf, TBH.
Correction: The discs are not soft. They are hard and can be sharp-edged as well. Keeping throws away from walking and bike paths is super critical.
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.
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.
The US is very sparsely populated overall. Of course cities are densely populated, but that’s because they’re cities.
I wish we’d just do non luxury apartment high rises with underground parking in HCOL areas. Then there is room for green spaces, and more people can be accommodated.
Parking is always expensive, and even more so for underground. The counter argument is that you can build much cheaper without, so the units can be more affordable.
I don’t entirely buy that, since developers could already choose less high end finishing for more affordable units and they usually don’t.
Also, “less parking” is not the same as “no parking” and that hinges on their being useful transit or walkability. I know that’s one of the points of a district like this, but this is why you do need to think big, so that an individual developer can make the choice
See also “transit oriented development”. Boston is one of the cities that has been pursuing that idea. Recently it was extended into the suburbs with new higher density zoning being a requirement for every community served by the regional transit authority
All that goes up are luxury units that nobody can afford and it is usually the same stick built BS that is inefficient in use of space and adds more tarmac
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.
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.
How do you have an easier time with a cane walking around everywhere than riding in a fucking car? I think you’re lying.
Bus. Tram. Subway. Train. And yes, I do drive if necessary. Walkable does not mean walking is mandatory, and a huge part of the push for a decrease in car only infrastructure is the increase in public transportation. The idea isn’t to remove the ability for cars to exist, but to make other forms of transportation accessible and possible, and make reliance on cars a thing of the past. I don’t know why you’ve got it so wrapped up in your head that cars are going to vanish and we will only be walking, as if there aren’t dozens of other forms of transportation accessible for those of us with disabilities. The time I’ve spent living in places with good public transportation is the most independence and self determination I’ve experienced. I’m not lying, you’re just disingenuous, stupid, or misinformed.
YOU HAVE TO FUCKING WALK TO AND FROM THE BUS, THE TRAM, THE SUBWAY, AND THE TRAIN. THOSE ARE NOT POOR MOBILITY FRIENDLY OPTIONS.
HOW FUCKING HARD IS THIS FOR YOU TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND, YOU HATEFUL SHIT?
I’m not hateful. The bus stop is never more than a short walk away. If you need a car to go 100 feet, then you shouldn’t be living alone. Do you think every disabled person is stupid? I’m not going to choose an apartment up 3 flights of stairs on the other end of the block from the bus stop. I’m going to use the ADA apartment on the ground floor that is a shorter walk to the bus stop than half the parking lot. If I need to get somewhere that I can’t access with public transportation without excessive walking, I’ll drive or get my fiancee to drive me. I’m sorry you think I’m hateful for sharing my own lived experience. That’s on you for lack of comprehension, not me.
Edit: And again, I USE CARS. I will continue to use cars when necessary. An increase in walkable cities and good public transportation means the roads will be more free for those that need them! It’s just an all around win, even if you absolutely need a car for any form of transport for some odd reason (even those that require a wheelchair use public transport over cars in most cities that have good transportation, because the infrastructure is built with us in mind).
You seem to think having mobility issues is an all or nothing, can’t-move-at-all or you can run around at will thing. I swear to fuck, people like you are the goddamn problem.
Grow up and figure out the reality of the world. Then get back to me. I am not going to live somewhere where I have to walk a path, pull myself onto a bus with tons of other people, cram myself into a seat, ride where I need to go, get what I need, CARRY THOSE THINGS BACK DOWN TO THE BUS AND GET ON THE BUS WITH THOSE THINGS, AND THEN GET OFF AND WALK BACK HOME ALSO WITH THOSE THINGS. Hell, even if I was healthy, that’s a pain in the ass.
Do you not understand such fucking simple things? Maybe you need to take the time to think about them. Don’t reply to me for a couple of days. Look at people who have mobility issues that don’t look that bad. See people getting out of their cars in the mobility parking that just snap up right out of their cars and walk seemingly without issue to the place they’re going? Hint: most people who do that are not faking a disability. Disability can manifest itself in many ways, and it doesn’t take much beyond simply walking down the street or living alone and being able to do enough basic tasks to get by safely to run into their actual problems.
Grow up, shut up, think, and get back to me. If this was any other goddamn condition, you’d be ostracized from society for being so goddamn hateful, but for some reason, ableism isn’t a real enough thing to people for them to be angry, and it absolutely should be as someone who does have some serious mobility issues.
You. Don’t. Have. To. Use your car! It’s not being taken away! You will have EASIER access to the roads with less people on them. I’m genuinely dumbfounded by your inability to understand this, or your apparent belief that disabled people either don’t live in or don’t use public transportation in places that have great transport. Seriously. You’re fighting ghosts here with how off the mark you are.
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.
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.
Lol, what makes you assume they couldn’t build parking?
I fucking hate me, so this tracks
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.
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.
Why do you love dystopian cars?
Why do you love dystopian societies where people aren’t able to get around freely unless they are privileged?
I’m happy you’re disabled enough and/or rich enough to get fancy-ass fucking disabled bikes for yourself. Privileged shitlords. The rest of us are fucked.
Because public services and transportation hasn’t and can’t provide services to disabled people? You really think that? Fuck man, these systems can work and provide for you easily. Japan and the Netherlands have a lot of handicap support and you can get around without needing to be privileged. But keep being sad I guess? I hope you get the help you need.
I can’t use public transportation. They make a nice show of how they’re “accessible” but they’re really fucking not. Fuck public transportation. Cars are so much easier and go RIGHT TO AND FROM WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.
You’re just being ableist and parroting the same anti-car bullshit.
I’m not. But you’re unwilling to have a productive conversation. With unproductive language. So it’s pointless to really continue this.
Both countries still have cars. You can still get around with a car. The idea is to reduce car usage so that people that have a need for a car can and with less traffic. You’ll get to point a and b quicker without people that don’t need a car clogging the street. But hey I’m apparently being ableist. When you’re willing to be productive in conversation we can continue with this. But if you’re gonna be thick about it. I’m not interested in continuing this.
What the fuck? I’m in the poorest 5% bracket of my country
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.
I see a lot of people saying build up not out, but you still need a place without houses to build denser housing (parking oceans should be place #1). I would keep way more of the green space than they do (and add in some community gardens?), but this might be a good option depending on the surrounding (sub)urban context. Its certainly not a good option for every (or probably most) golf course, but its going to be the best option sometimes.
Cause no way in crap would that many people living that close together not cause issues
Under which rock have you been living? Ever heard of “a city”?
you should visit honkers
imagine being so antisocial that you’d rather drive to buy some fucking bread
This is literally how ussr built things
That’s way over simplification. Higher density neighborhoods have been a feature of cities Ed since cities existed, and plenty of successes were planned ahead.
Soviet Union had many failing but the general idea is not one of them. Perhaps the failing here is centrally planning such districts without regard for what people want.
Modern societies instead use things like zoning to guide development while leaving the details up to developers. we’re used to complaining about zoning when it creates exclusive single family home neighborhoods but it can also serve as a tool to guide walkable or transit oriented neighborhoods or more affordable housing without relying on central planning
Micro-Districts are a solid idea. While the USSR had many problems, this was not one of them.
But that runs counter to my need as a developer to buildoze 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
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.
it never changes back
Generally speaking, when it takes a nuclear reactor meltdown to reclaim space that is… what is the word…
Terrible.
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!
Welcome to why the sim city games don’t have visible parking. They consciously removed parking spaces because it spread everything out too far.
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
I feel like neighborhoods not having local small-scale stores is a uniquely American problem.
Here in Brazil every neighborhood is expected to have at least one grocery store, one convenience store, one pharmacy, one bakery, and one gas station. And most of them have a lot more than that, and a dozen other businesses.
Like sure, you have to drive to the city center to get to the big shops and you’ll generally have more options if you do, but still.
The exception is like. Specific developments built by and for wealthy people who want to Live Away From The Poors ™️ in a tropical imitation of American Suburbia. But THOSE people are there by choice.
They do exist, even in the US. In general, look for a place that was built out before cars were everywhere
Agreed. A corner store, bakery, and a few other odds and ends as a cluster would be pretty solid.
I hate not being able to just… walk to what I need.
Yeah, special commercial zoning, if we can’t eliminate restrictions on small businesses in neighborhoods entirely, which should be the end goal. But yeah we desperately need anything we can get.
What are all those stupid shapes, and why does it look like there about 3 feet between each one?
Looks like normal European four-story buildings. I live in one with some strange corners. No Problem with them.
There’s no reason cities have to be boring squares. And those shapes could preserve the most trees.
There’s a reason houses aren’t shaped really oddly. Also a reason there’s more space between them.
Compare the space between them to the space between the blocks that exist. There’s way more space.
Also, do tell what the reason is besides it just being cheaper to build on empty land? If this isn’t meant to be a car centric neighbourhood, you really don’t need everything to be straight.
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.
There’s a few solutions out there to this, but it’s going to take a push to get city councils to agree to them.
The city can provide loan guarantees to co-operative housing projects. Once the loan is paid off, everyone owns their condo.
The city can also build its own housing rather than relying on developers.
Even Blackrock is affected by supply and demand. We clearly haven’t been building enough in most high demand places and that is not under Blackrocks control. Insufficient supply leads to high prices, regardless of corporate ownership
Let’s start with how can we help supply catch up with demand, then take additional steps if that doesn’t bring prices down
You should move to a golf-neighbourhood.
We need to go touch pitchforks.
That area should hold about 400 people, not 40,000. The trees won’t survive unless they can see the sky.
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
