• Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

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

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        48 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        @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.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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