3 ms·

> Mainly because it is much better for kids to see a tree from time to time Is that a hyperbole or meant literally? I live in a mid-sized German city (500k inh

> Mainly because it is much better for kids to see a tree from time to time Is that a hyperbole or meant literally? I live in a mid-sized German city (500k inhabitants) and find it hard to come up with any place in the city where you cannot see multiple trees.

saiya-jin 7y ago
Obviously hyperbole, its more about access to proper nature, be it in form of vast forests or even better mountains. There is something about soothing touch of nature that can't be mimicked by any other means. Especially important for kids
- maccard 7y ago
  But moving to the suburbs doesn't give immediate access to nature - you still need to drive to find mountains/vast forests? I live in the city centre and I'm a 25 minutes drive from a woodland, or an hour's drive from an ancient forest and mountains. You definitely can have the best of both living in the city
  - dnissley 7y ago
    Depends on the suburb. There was forest in my backyard growing up. But there were plenty of other areas nearby with nothing like that.
- dagw 7y ago
  be it in form of vast forests or even better mountains. If you are within walking distance of vast forests and mountains I would argue you're almost per definition not in the suburbs any more. And ironically in many places living in the city might give you better access to nature. Certainly the suburb where I grew up getting to the 'real' forest required a car, while when I moved to the city the forest was a short walk from the last stop on the subway.
  - freetime2 7y ago
    > If you are within walking distance of vast forests and mountains I would argue you're almost per definition not in the suburbs any more. We may be thinking different scales of “vast” here, but where I grew up in the suburbs of Boston, I could walk 5 minutes from my doorstep and be on a pretty much endless network of nature trails running through the forest, along rivers and ponds. I spent a decent portion of my childhood and teenage years goofing off in the woods with friends away from adult supervision. A lot of New England suburbs are like that.
raxxorrax 7y ago
> Is that a hyperbole or meant literally? It is of course an allegory for the general lack of nature within cities. Of course there are some parks and German cities tend to be green. But that is all relative and for many people no substitute for "real" nature, where you can leave your kids on their own without needing to worry about traffic or other dangers. That is the thought process of most couples that had kids in my circle. Of course cities offer more childcare services, but that isn't an argument for people having a certain mobility. Some lone trees on some boulevard or avenue just doesn't cut it for many people.
maccard 7y ago
I live in a city the same size in the UK, in a building with 11 other flats, less than a 15 minutes walk from the center, and there are trees and parks everywhere.

saiya-jin 7y ago

Obviously hyperbole, its more about access to proper nature, be it in form of vast forests or even better mountains. There is something about soothing touch of nature that can't be mimicked by any other means. Especially important for kids

maccard 7y ago
But moving to the suburbs doesn't give immediate access to nature - you still need to drive to find mountains/vast forests? I live in the city centre and I'm a 25 minutes drive from a woodland, or an hour's drive from an ancient forest and mountains. You definitely can have the best of both living in the city
- dnissley 7y ago
  Depends on the suburb. There was forest in my backyard growing up. But there were plenty of other areas nearby with nothing like that.
dagw 7y ago
be it in form of vast forests or even better mountains. If you are within walking distance of vast forests and mountains I would argue you're almost per definition not in the suburbs any more. And ironically in many places living in the city might give you better access to nature. Certainly the suburb where I grew up getting to the 'real' forest required a car, while when I moved to the city the forest was a short walk from the last stop on the subway.
- freetime2 7y ago
  > If you are within walking distance of vast forests and mountains I would argue you're almost per definition not in the suburbs any more. We may be thinking different scales of “vast” here, but where I grew up in the suburbs of Boston, I could walk 5 minutes from my doorstep and be on a pretty much endless network of nature trails running through the forest, along rivers and ponds. I spent a decent portion of my childhood and teenage years goofing off in the woods with friends away from adult supervision. A lot of New England suburbs are like that.

raxxorrax 7y ago

> Is that a hyperbole or meant literally? It is of course an allegory for the general lack of nature within cities. Of course there are some parks and German cities tend to be green. But that is all relative and for many people no substitute for "real" nature, where you can leave your kids on their own without needing to worry about traffic or other dangers. That is the thought process of most couples that had kids in my circle. Of course cities offer more childcare services, but that isn't an argument for people having a certain mobility. Some lone trees on some boulevard or avenue just doesn't cut it for many people.

maccard 7y ago

I live in a city the same size in the UK, in a building with 11 other flats, less than a 15 minutes walk from the center, and there are trees and parks everywhere.