• Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 minutes ago

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

  • Sʏʟᴇɴᴄᴇ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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.

    • doktormerlin@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      52 minutes ago

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

    • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 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.

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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.

    • Sergio@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 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?

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        7 hours 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
          13
          ·
          6 hours 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
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

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

  • odelik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 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.

  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 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.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

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