3 ms·
Funny you ask: I'm moving in a few days to a remote place in France. Closest village, by walk, is 50 minutes away according to google maps. It's also all stee
by TacticalCoder 5y ago
Funny you ask: I'm moving in a few days to a remote place in France. Closest village, by walk, is 50 minutes away according to google maps. It's also all steep uphills and downhills, so bicycling there is hard (I do have a MTB for fun and, darn, it's hard to cycle there... Although the local policemen from the village do use bikes on non-rainy days).
By car it's a 5 minutes drive. So 50 minutes vs 5 minutes. Bicycling would be 15 minutes then 15 minutes back but I'd be toast due to the hills.
Closest highway: 45 minutes drive.
Closest city: 1h15 minutes.
Driving my kid to school in the morning: second closest village, 12 km / 7 miles. By bicycle? More than 40 minutes just to get there. Car: 12 minutes.
Of course I don't get the "vibrant" city life.
But I do get shitloads of nature and a sky so clean at night I can not just see stars but the Milky Way too.
As to where it is: I won't give the exact location but let's say "somewhere on the french riviera" (think Sonoma County vineyards meet the mediterannean sea: a little piece of paradise on earth with ultra-low density of population).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- user_7832 5y agoThat's certainly interesting, and the place sounds nice. I think most people (certainly me) will admit that cars are almost necessary in your situation. Just curious though, would it not be better to live near a larger place assuming larger towns/cities may have better schools (on average)?