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.
Reminds me of AtomEve’s situation in Invincible. Everyone think they are an architect till shit isn’t engineered correctly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, guess I may not have exposure to the scene as much. My experience is probably more ‘filthy casual’ level, at a few parks and a corporate campus that seems to just have goals installed without much regard for where the trails are, and the few times I’ve participated it was just random folks with pretty mundane frisbees.
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.
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.
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
Sure, but zoning has some effect - developers will build to maximize their profit within what is allowed by zoning.
- if zoning allows multiple units, they maximize profits by building as many as they can
- if zoning requires less parking, they may maximize profits by replacing some parking space with more units (assuming sufficient transit to allow them to sell)
- if zoning creates areas of higher density, a town center type of area can create a synergy that draws more people, more profit.
- while not everyone wants to live in a town center or a large building, more housing supply can drive down prices for everyone: supply and demand
I’m not claiming zoning is sufficient nor does it act quickly but it can be a tool for improving livability, setting the conditions for developers to profit more by building what the town benefits from.
Currently zoning is mostly a weapon enforcing the status quo, but it doesn’t have to be
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 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
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.
@VinesNFluff @A_Random_Idiot Yup, and yet the US and its consulting firms desperately try to export this failure to other countries and expect to be paid for their “expertise” in how to destroy cities.
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.
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.
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
We need to go touch pitchforks.
You should move to a golf-neighbourhood.
Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park? People love green stuff, you know.
This particular golf course is a park. Seattle Parks and Rec uses a management company, but it is one of the cheapest ways to play.
I think the proposed homes near the highway should be forested as a buffer.
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.
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.
@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.Interesting idea. I’m not sure if that works everywhere but it’s a start. :)
People love green stuff, you know.
Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!
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
because poor people are already living on the golf course and would really appreciate roofs
In lots of cities vacancy rates are too low making it hard to find housing
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.
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.
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.
But you know you have to be a certified rich asshole to live in those HOAs.
In Germany most courses only have a few public walkways and if you leave them security will escort you right out
Let’s also get rid of golf courses in arid deserts in the midst of droughts
You had me at “Let’s get rid of golf courses”
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.
@mosiacmango @PugJesus
My wire cutters, pipe cutters and bolt cutters are cheaper than your fence.That lady is Seattle personified.
A fairly generic lady and that’s what you took from that guy’s comment?
There’s nothing generic about that lady in fact that’s a pretty cruel thing to say about someone.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.
I supposed they meant “And this amount of space is still available for greenery” rather than “These, specific, trees will be preserved”
Depends how many floors they have but yeah, that would be quite high density at 60k/km²
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
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.
