Hacker News Reader

Comment by edoceo | Hacker News Reader

Oh man. When Seattle was removing the Fun Forest from Seattle Center I remember calling the council and asking them to replace with a real forest. Would have been cool (literally and figuratively) to have an acre or two of Cascadia native trees so close to a downtown core.

Got a glass museum and a astro-turf kids park instead.

View on HN

Not to say that that wouldn't be pretty cool, but we also have Discovery Park and it's only like a couple of miles away from Seattle Center. It's a legitimate Cascadian forest.

Friend, this park is awesome. It's got loads of env features. Meadow, forest, beach, the pond trail rocks. And Carkeek is amazing too. I love parks - it's why I wanted another one :)

Wow, right out of the song: They paved paradise and put up a parking lot . . . They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum, and charged the people a dollar and a half to see them. Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?

We know what not to do and sleepwalk into it anyway.

Joni Mitchell: https://youtu.be/94bdMSCdw20

Counting Crows: https://youtu.be/tvtJPs8IDgU

Lots of decent sized parks in Seattle. Would another one be bad? No. Would it automatically be better than whatever they actually built? Also no. Cities are places for people, and anything in a city economically kinda has to serve people. There are tons of forests around Seattle, and they are great. But I don't know if the marginal acre in Seattle needs to be used for a tiny, probably not self-sustaining replica.

“Fun Forest” in Seattle wasn’t a forest - it was a paved area with some low-budget amusement park rides.

Adelaide kind of has something like this: the city centre is surrounded by a ring of trees, which is in turn surrounded by a big road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com