3 ms·

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

• 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.