6 ms·
Manhattan has Central Park, which is a forest. Compare vs the suburban sprawl of modern design where it's an ocean of tract housing with stunted little fresh-p
by Pxtl 7y ago
Manhattan has Central Park, which is a forest. Compare vs the suburban sprawl of modern design where it's an ocean of tract housing with stunted little fresh-planted trees and I'd say the reverse is generally true. I can see the argument for rural living, but not for modern suburbia.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _delirium 7y agoManhattan feels like really one of the best cases for trees outside of rural areas. A large percentage of the residential neighborhoods are in walking distance of a big forest... even other boroughs of NYC are mostly worse for that. Some other cities have better weekend access to forests, e.g. in L.A. you can drive to the mountains, but there aren't many with better large forests actually in the city. Maybe DC with Rock Creek Park.
- cpitman 7y agoDC and the surrounding metro area both have a surprising amount of trees. I work in Tyson's Corner, not far from DC at all, and the view from the office is trees as far as the eyes can see with occasional outcroppings of towers. Rock Creek Park basically bisects the entire city as well.
- tomjakubowski 7y agoGriffith Park (4,217 acres) isn't a forest exactly, but pretty close to it, and right in the heart of Los Angeles city.
- _delirium 7y agoAh that's a good point! I even used to live in the LA area years ago, but I lived far enough east of there that the Angeles National Forest was much closer, so I forgot that Griffith Park exists.
- zaphod4prez 7y agoThis is going to seem pedantic but like just sharing my perspective. Central Park sooo doesn't feel like a forest to me. It's like walking around a crowded lawn (ok maybe thats a bit dramatic). But Central park really doesn't do it for me; when I'm in NYC I need to spend time in Prospect Park (which is closerrr to a forest) or else I go crazy
- rrdharan 7y agoAre you sure you’ve explored the whole thing? The crowded lawn is certainly one part of it but there are whole swaths up near 110th that are much quieter as well as large dense tree sections e.g. near the zoo.
- dahfizz 7y agoHaving a couple trees does not make it a forest. have you ever walked out in real nature?
- graeme 7y agoThis is in central park: https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/514446 https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/514446 Most is not like that mind you. But not bad for a city forest
- dTal 7y agoNot the original complainer, but that looks quite sterile to me. Apart from the trees there's very little vegetation, beyong the odd fern - no moss, no rotting logs, no undergrowth or leaf-mold floor. It doesn't look moist enough. Just dry, dusty dirt.
- graeme 7y agoThose are paths people walked on. Since there’s a lot of foot traffic they’re wider than regular forests. But yeah, it’a city forest. Not the same as wild, but more forest-ty than the discussion implied I think. Most visitors only see the south park of central park.
- alfromspace 7y agoRural and small town living is the way to go for me. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here defending the aesthetics of cookie-cutter suburbs.
- Causality1 7y agoTo clarify, I meant 80s and 90s suburbs, not the godawful European-looking Stepford-wife monstrosities they build now. Suburbs with tree cover where you may or may not be able to even see the house next door. The kind where every house looks different because it was built by a different company and none of the lots are smaller than half an acre.
- novok 7y agoThat's not very dense even for suburbia. There is a lot of suburban housing from that era that doesn't look like that at all.
- jimmaswell 7y agoPerfection to me is a land plot surrounded by woods with no neighbors for miles, maybe with a pond or a stream going through.
- ip26 7y agoSuburbs can have vast canopies. They just often choose not to, feeling bare grass is the most attractive. (I personally don't understand the appeal of a neighborhood that has been methodically expunged of shade)
- lonelappde 7y agoTrees are expensive to maintain if they are between closely packed houses. Wealthier suburbs have more trees than poorer.
- pvaldes 7y ago> Trees are expensive to maintain Not really. This is just a problem of poorly designed gardens, bad choice of species, and greed. Trees are valuable and fine wood species are always in risk of being stolen. I said this after seeing this afternoon a street reformed and notice the space left by a big blue cedar and a nice Beech that suddenly dissapeared in the center of the field for no reason. Both around 80 years old and perfectly healthy. Most people would freak if the bank in their street is robbed but don't even notice when the park in their street is robbed.
- Spooky23 7y agoThe difference with New York City is that it’s old and spent a lot of time and money on parks. Any modern development will be a tree wasteland long term, as all of the topsoil is generally scraped away and sold, and the heavy equipment packs down the soil. I agree re: suburbia, but for different reasons.
- dahfizz 7y agoFor people who actually grew up in nature, Central Park feels as synthetic as everything else in the city. Every inch is landscaped and planned out. It's nothing like taking a walk in the woods, with the plethora of wild plants and animals. It feels like a sad attempt by a city to be less of a city, but you can't replicate or build nature.