this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
985 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

10348 readers
1437 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] pseudo@jlai.lu 3 points 4 hours ago

You should move to a golf-neighbourhood.

[–] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 2 points 37 minutes ago

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

[–] biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

People love green stuff, you know.

Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours 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.

[–] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 36 minutes 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.

[–] The_Caretaker@urbanists.social 8 points 6 hours 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.

[–] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 42 minutes ago

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

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours 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

[–] lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] Sylence@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 20 points 12 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.

[–] doktormerlin@feddit.org 7 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

but then where should the rich people go golfing?

[–] mouserat@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 10 hours ago
[–] stormeuh@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago
[–] FleetingTit@feddit.org 10 points 12 hours ago

Now add in mixed use zoning, and affordable housing units and this could be a winner

[–] karpintero@lemmy.world 163 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Let's also get rid of golf courses in arid deserts in the midst of droughts

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 139 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You had me at "Let’s get rid of golf courses"

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 48 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] urata@lemmy.world 36 points 16 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 86 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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 30 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 25 points 15 hours ago

I supposed they meant "And this amount of space is still available for greenery" rather than "These, specific, trees will be preserved"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] odelik@lemmy.today 31 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

The neat part is that businesses can be in the bottom couple of floors. Though often this doesn't seem to be done unless it's the CBD...

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 33 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

BuT wHeRe WouLd i PaRk mY cAr?!?!!?

[–] rolling_resistance@lemmy.world 45 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That's the neat part, you don't.

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 31 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

car
car go
car go bye
cargo bike

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 16 hours ago

Plus you can live in a pentagon! Just not the Pentagon.

load more comments
view more: next ›