• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    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.

    • Sergio@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

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

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

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

  • Sʏʟᴇɴᴄᴇ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    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.