4 ms·
Timewise, cities aren't that much further from the wilderness than suburbs are. There are certainly advantages to living in suburbs, space being the primary one
by hx87 10y ago
Timewise, cities aren't that much further from the wilderness than suburbs are. There are certainly advantages to living in suburbs, space being the primary one, but time isn't one of them.
- lettergram 10y agoI am 100% sure people in Boston, NYC, the Bay Area, downtown Chicago, etc. would strongly disagree that it takes 15 minutes or less to get to a place to hike, horse back ride, and/or fish. Having lived in the Chicago suburbs, downtown Chicago, Champaign, IL and the Bay Area; assuming you live in a suburb (as opposed to Champaign, IL) you'll have access to a much larger variety of places to go in the suburbs. I will however agree that going out to bars, or traveling via foot/public transit would be difficult.
- arebop 10y agoLet's say 30 minutes [https://goo.gl/maps/SjMUzazkmUy https://goo.gl/maps/SjMUzazkmUy]. Is that "much further" than 15 minutes?
- cafard 10y agoI'm cheating here because I live in Washington, DC, and in an area close to Rock Creek Park. But in order if time to get there: the hiking trails of Rock Creek Park, about 10 minutes walking; the nearest riding stables, about 10 minutes driving; fishing at Roaches Run, 25 minutes driving in light traffic.
- thescriptkiddie 10y agoThis is only true because you have to drive through the wasteland that is the suburbs to get out of the city. In places without such excessive suburban sprawl you can get out of the city much more easily.