5 ms·

> the only nature available is hyper populated parks with dogshit and cigarette butts wow, that's a hyper negative view of cities. am I spoiled by knowing tha

> the only nature available is hyper populated parks with dogshit and cigarette butts wow, that's a hyper negative view of cities. am I spoiled by knowing that there are large "parks" around me, ranging from 200 acres to 1300+ acres that are within walking or bus distance? hardly the dogshit and cigarette butt filled parks that some others are describing.

hunter-gatherer 5y ago
I grew up in SE Utah and have lived in DC/Maryland for some years of my adult life. To people like me, the 1300 acre parks a a very far cry from "nature". Probably just that perspective.
- presentation 5y ago
  I grew up in the Midwest, experienced a lot of great nature and hiking around the US and Asia, but live in Tokyo and enjoy big cities. From my perspective—if the city is clean and quiet (my Apple watch says 95% of my neighborhood has an ambient noise level of 35dB, and I live near a popular central Tokyo station), and has enough nice parks near me (definitely don't need anywhere close to 1300 acres for that), that does the job—I don't feel any need whatsoever to live in immediate proximity to amazing natural amenities, and when I do go to them, a couple days is more than I need. Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world.
  - dkdbejwi383 5y ago
    > Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world. The YouTube channel "Not just bikes" talks about this. In the USA, it is commonly seen that there are only two possible configurations for human settlements: sprawling suburbs, or Manhattan-style high-density towers. The medium-density style of city common across a lot of Europe and Asia is not very well known in the USA and Canada outside of a select few older cities which developed to a large enough size before the automobile took over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o
dylan604 5y ago
I don't think that's negative at all. I find it pretty accurate. Cities are so desperate for parks, that they call concrete paved areas named as parks with a minimum amount of green. Parks !== nature. If your only experience with nature is a city park, then you haven't really experienced nature.
hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
i've been to many cites, and many suburbs. in my city, we have suburbs that are full of trees and parks. i've even seen a kangaroo and a koala nesar the city. then we in the same city have these car bound arid wastelands. both are true. australia and america have cities like this, all their cities have this wasteland. travelling in europe, you see the medium cities. many trams, bike lanes and trains to get between the wastelands which still exist and the nice parks in the nice places. the european model ( i say this as a cyclist) is so much preferable.

hunter-gatherer 5y ago

I grew up in SE Utah and have lived in DC/Maryland for some years of my adult life. To people like me, the 1300 acre parks a a very far cry from "nature". Probably just that perspective.

presentation 5y ago
I grew up in the Midwest, experienced a lot of great nature and hiking around the US and Asia, but live in Tokyo and enjoy big cities. From my perspective—if the city is clean and quiet (my Apple watch says 95% of my neighborhood has an ambient noise level of 35dB, and I live near a popular central Tokyo station), and has enough nice parks near me (definitely don't need anywhere close to 1300 acres for that), that does the job—I don't feel any need whatsoever to live in immediate proximity to amazing natural amenities, and when I do go to them, a couple days is more than I need. Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world.
- dkdbejwi383 5y ago
  > Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world. The YouTube channel "Not just bikes" talks about this. In the USA, it is commonly seen that there are only two possible configurations for human settlements: sprawling suburbs, or Manhattan-style high-density towers. The medium-density style of city common across a lot of Europe and Asia is not very well known in the USA and Canada outside of a select few older cities which developed to a large enough size before the automobile took over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o

dylan604 5y ago

I don't think that's negative at all. I find it pretty accurate. Cities are so desperate for parks, that they call concrete paved areas named as parks with a minimum amount of green. Parks !== nature. If your only experience with nature is a city park, then you haven't really experienced nature.

hazza_n_dazza 5y ago

i've been to many cites, and many suburbs. in my city, we have suburbs that are full of trees and parks. i've even seen a kangaroo and a koala nesar the city. then we in the same city have these car bound arid wastelands. both are true. australia and america have cities like this, all their cities have this wasteland. travelling in europe, you see the medium cities. many trams, bike lanes and trains to get between the wastelands which still exist and the nice parks in the nice places. the european model ( i say this as a cyclist) is so much preferable.