Countries around the world use more land for golf courses than wind or solar energy, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Communications.
Seattle is pretty desperate for housing. 40k new units, especially municipal owned one since this is a city golf course, would be a huge stride forward. Seattle also just passed a ballot measure for city to build low income/mixed income housing directly, so this would line up incredibly well for that.
I’m pretty sure Seattle has an ordinance making changing a park to something else very challenging to impossible. Technically golf courses are parks, though I’d argue terrible ones, making it a much smaller lift to turn them into better (actual) parks and let the golfers go out of town.
not the same thing but similar: Bromma airport in Stockholm is basically completely dead at this point, no one except the right wing parties want to keep it, so while they cope and seethe the rest of the government is talking about turning the airport into a new district much like what is shown here!
It really should be the obvious choice because it’s a super central area and there’s already a tramway going through it!
True because cities have parks, roads, rivers, business, industrial or municipal areas that can’t or shouldn’t be used for housing. But there are neighborhoods almost as dense. Yorkville in NYC has more than 60.000 inhabitants per square kilometer. 160 acres is about 0.65 square kilometers.
As someone who grew up in Suburbia I can say that higher density would be better since it was more kids to play with nearby. We should make sure that there’s a park within walking distance of dense housing going forward I think, since if you don’t have a private car the park is a reasonable ask, especially since it’s probably going to be even better than some dumb piece of grass anyways
Absolutely, I’m not US and I have no experience with megacities, but I am trying to find ways to build cities that better match our needs going forward. I don’t know if the American car dependent suburbia is what is needed either.
As for parks in dense cityscapes, I’ve listened to clever architects who’ve discovered statistical regression claim that parks are more valuable per square meter the smaller they are… And while true in and of itself, it asks the question, how small is the minimum for them to be usable? Humans that experience greenery (even arranged) daily are healthier both mentally and physically. Where is the cut off?
This person is obviously assuming the norms and economic equilibrium of 20th century America is a universal when in reality I was a historical arberation that’s dragging on because the people from that era are still the ones clinging to power. Like yeah I get there was an old socially accepted life script but that is gone forever now, time to grow up and build a better world.
I am however intrigued by the idea of having a couple blocks cordoned off as some 18+ public sex Kink sex toy District, that actually sounds kind of fun
Manhattan has a lot of Office Buildings which brings down the average, people commute in their from over 100 miles away so you can have a lot of office workers in a space with a permanent population that’s much lower
Or just make it into a park. We’re not so desperate for space we need to build on what little urban greenery we have left…
Seattle is pretty desperate for housing. 40k new units, especially municipal owned one since this is a city golf course, would be a huge stride forward. Seattle also just passed a ballot measure for city to build low income/mixed income housing directly, so this would line up incredibly well for that.
There are talks to convert this into a beautiful park too, but the city government is not interested.
I’m pretty sure Seattle has an ordinance making changing a park to something else very challenging to impossible. Technically golf courses are parks, though I’d argue terrible ones, making it a much smaller lift to turn them into better (actual) parks and let the golfers go out of town.
not the same thing but similar: Bromma airport in Stockholm is basically completely dead at this point, no one except the right wing parties want to keep it, so while they cope and seethe the rest of the government is talking about turning the airport into a new district much like what is shown here!
It really should be the obvious choice because it’s a super central area and there’s already a tramway going through it!
https://www.mp.se/sites/default/files/bromma_parkstad_-_rapport.pdf
40k on 160 acres is more density than any city that currently exists…
True because cities have parks, roads, rivers, business, industrial or municipal areas that can’t or shouldn’t be used for housing. But there are neighborhoods almost as dense. Yorkville in NYC has more than 60.000 inhabitants per square kilometer. 160 acres is about 0.65 square kilometers.
Ouch. And how many of those are children?
Edit: What? Has nobody reflected on the fact that urban environments are for grown ups only?
As someone who grew up in Suburbia I can say that higher density would be better since it was more kids to play with nearby. We should make sure that there’s a park within walking distance of dense housing going forward I think, since if you don’t have a private car the park is a reasonable ask, especially since it’s probably going to be even better than some dumb piece of grass anyways
Absolutely, I’m not US and I have no experience with megacities, but I am trying to find ways to build cities that better match our needs going forward. I don’t know if the American car dependent suburbia is what is needed either.
As for parks in dense cityscapes, I’ve listened to clever architects who’ve discovered statistical regression claim that parks are more valuable per square meter the smaller they are… And while true in and of itself, it asks the question, how small is the minimum for them to be usable? Humans that experience greenery (even arranged) daily are healthier both mentally and physically. Where is the cut off?
If they’re for grown ups, then there aren’t enough sex toy shops and kink spaces.
This person is obviously assuming the norms and economic equilibrium of 20th century America is a universal when in reality I was a historical arberation that’s dragging on because the people from that era are still the ones clinging to power. Like yeah I get there was an old socially accepted life script but that is gone forever now, time to grow up and build a better world.
I am however intrigued by the idea of having a couple blocks cordoned off as some 18+ public sex Kink sex toy District, that actually sounds kind of fun
I stole the image from fuckcars so yeah. Its a no roads kinda deal.
It is even substantially higher than Manhattan (~27000 people/km²)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
Manhattan has a lot of Office Buildings which brings down the average, people commute in their from over 100 miles away so you can have a lot of office workers in a space with a permanent population that’s much lower