this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1362 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

10393 readers
891 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago

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.

https://premiergc.com/-jackson-park-golf-course

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Interesting idea. I'm not sure if that works everywhere but it's a start. :)

[–] GrumpyDuckling 7 points 1 day ago

I think the proposed homes near the highway should be forested as a buffer.

[–] biggerbogboy 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

People love green stuff, you know.

Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!

[–] index 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

because poor people are already living on the golf course and would really appreciate roofs

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

In lots of cities vacancy rates are too low making it hard to find housing