{"id":3648,"date":"2026-06-11T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pickle-times.com\/?post_type=news&p=3648"},"modified":"2026-06-11T15:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-11T06:00:00","slug":"seattle-courts-removal","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/pickle-times.com\/en\/news\/seattle-courts-removal\/","title":{"rendered":"The City of Seattle to Remove 36 Courts -- 2,000 Residents Sign a Petition, the \"Line-Drawing\" with Tennis a Flashpoint"},"content":{"rendered":"

Seattle has floated a plan to cut its pickleball courts by 36, from the current 92 to 56, and resident opposition is growing. The local Seattle Metro Pickleball Association (SMPA) has gathered more than 2,000 signatures against the plan. It could be carried out as early as June 2026.<\/p>\n

From 92 courts to 56: the city's policy of \"separating\" from tennis<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The courts the city is targeting are the \"shared courts\" that were made dual-use during the pandemic by adding lines to tennis courts. The city explains that it wants to \"more clearly separate tennis and pickleball demand and assign the two sports to separate facilities.\" Meanwhile, the 107 tennis courts are to be kept largely as they are, so only the pickleball side faces major cuts. The affected courts span seven districts of the city.<\/p>\n

How the pandemic gave rise to \"shared\" courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Pickleball surged in Seattle during the pandemic. As a sport you could enjoy outdoors while avoiding crowds, capacity was created by adding lines to existing tennis courts. But as permanent dedicated courts failed to keep pace and users swelled, clashes over scheduling with the tennis side became routine. The city's current plan aims to end that \"temporary sharing\" and physically separate the two sports.<\/p>\n

West Seattle's \"High Point\" in the crosshairs<\/h3>\n

Named as a target for cuts is \"High Point\" in West Seattle, which has high usage density. There are strong concerns that losing a key local hub would leave nearby players with nowhere to go.<\/p>\n

Changes in court numbers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nDetails<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Current pickleball courts<\/td>\n92 courts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
After the cuts<\/td>\n56 courts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Courts to be removed<\/td>\n36 courts (shared courts)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tennis courts to be kept<\/td>\n107 courts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Affected districts<\/td>\n7 districts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Timing<\/td>\nAs early as June 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Inside the residents' movement -- 2,000 signatures and the association's demands<\/strong><\/h2>\n

SMPA has gathered more than 2,000 signatures against the plan and is making three demands of the city. First, keep the 36 shared courts in use until new dedicated courts are completed. Second, consider alternatives that expand access for both sports rather than reducing use. Third, make sure the plan supports local equity and community building. Association contact Tony Pisa is leading the effort, and players such as Amy Nelson have also spoken up. At the core of the movement is the argument that \"taking away existing access before dedicated courts are built has the order backwards.\"<\/p>\n

Implications for Japanese Readers and Operators<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The approach of expanding pickleball capacity by sharing tennis courts is seen across Japan too. The Seattle case shows that when sharing settles in as \"temporary,\" friction over later conversion to dedicated use and separation can erupt after the fact.A lodging facility building dedicated courts in Sakai, Osaka<\/a>highlights the importance of designs that secure dedicated space from the outset.<\/p>\n

The context of the ongoing court turf war in the US<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The battle over facilities with tennis is happening all across the US.In Boulder, Colorado, conflict with the tennis camp surfaced over breaking ground on 12 dedicated courts,<\/a>and local governments are struggling to reconcile the two sports. What makes Seattle distinctive is that it put forward a plan centered on \"cuts\" rather than expansion. This shows that in cities past the surge phase, facility allocation is entering a phase of reassessment.<\/p>\n

How this differs from the \"boom is over\" narrative<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Some US media analysesread the slowing pace of court growth as \"the end of the boom.\"<\/a>But Seattle's move is not a disappearance of demand. Rather, as usage overheated, the limits of sharing were exposed, and resident pressure demanding dedicated courts is colliding head-on with the plan to cut them. The coexistence of a numerical \"decline\" and on-the-ground \"overcrowding\" is what makes this city's situation unique.<\/p>\n

People and organizations involved<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Position<\/th>\nParty<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Proposing the cuts<\/td>\nSeattle Parks and Recreation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Leading the opposition<\/td>\nSeattle Metro Pickleball Association (SMPA)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Association contact<\/td>\nTony Pisa<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Signatures<\/td>\nMore than 2,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Summary<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Seattle's court-removal plan is not a backlash against the boom but a clash brought on by the limits of sharing as a stopgap solution. If the city steers toward separation before dedicated courts catch up with growing demand, the most active players will be shut out. The 2,000 residents' signatures are also a warning to operators everywhere: get the order of facility planning wrong and the pushback will organize.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\n