We need to go touch pitchforks.

In the United States of America, the average lot size for a single-family home is 0.19 acres (which is equivalent to 8,176 square feet). This math means that around 5 average-sized single-family homes can fit into one acre of land.

(Source)

So even if we're talking regular single-family homes you can already build 800.

Many trees do very well in the shade, as long as their crowns get sun part of the day. Leave some room between buildings and you can easily build 4-6 stories tall and still have trees in between. You can easily fit 20 apartments per acre that way. That's about 3200 apartments. With 3 people per household that's close to 10k people.

I agree 40k is optimistic, but 400 is way pessimistic

People love green stuff, you know.

Exactly, this is why we should legalise weed!

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.

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

On Mars

in hell

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.

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

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.

I would argue closer to 30, unless you’re including all the easement and sidewalks?

Good luck with the NIMBYs. Or NIMFYs now I guess?

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...

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the idea here in a couple of ways

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