3 ms·

"not just green spaces scattered amid the concrete" Most major cities have at least one park that is a few hundred acres.

throwaway894345 5y ago
A few hundred acres of forest is very different than a few hundred acres of soccer pitches, tennis courts, playgrounds, lawns, gardens, etc with a few acres of bird sanctuary, wetland, or prairie strewn about. It’s better than concrete, but it’s not nature.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Most towns and suburbs don't have acres of wild forest in them. That's not exactly a unique "flaw" of cities.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    What a bizarre constraint. Of course the forest isn’t in the town. You live in a suburb or town or (this is going to blow some minds in this thread) acreage outside of town that is at most a reasonable drive to nature. My criticism of cities is that a lot of them are hours away from anything that anyone would call nature (although this thread has made me aware that there are a shockingly large number of people who have never actually seen nature and for whom the word conjures up images of their local urban park).
    - ryukafalz 5y ago
      > My criticism of cities is that a lot of them are hours away from anything that anyone would call nature This is only because the suburbs are often sprawled in between the city and any nature that might have been nearby. It’d be a heck of a lot easier to get to from the city if you didn’t have miles and miles of low-density suburbs in each direction. Anyway, “local urban parks” is a pretty broad category. It’s not just tiny parks we’re talking about; here’s one near me: https://fow.org/visit-the-park/photo-gallery/ https://fow.org/visit-the-park/photo-gallery/
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > This is only because the suburbs are often sprawled in between the city and any nature that might have been nearby. Agreed, but I don’t think there’s a realistic world where you have dense urban cores immediately juxtaposed with forest, especially considering how m any people are advocating for accelerated urbanization (moving people from suburbs and rural areas). Sure, that park looks pretty legit. I think that’s with pretty exceptional or those photos aren’t telling the full story—my city has similar parks but behind the photographer would be rows of houses and the city would still be loud around us.
        ryukafalz 5y ago
        > Agreed, but I don’t think there’s a realistic world where you have dense urban cores immediately juxtaposed with forest, especially considering how m any people are advocating for accelerated urbanization (moving people from suburbs and rural areas). At this point, maybe, because we’ve leveled any forests immediately around cities for suburban sprawl. But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. > Sure, that park looks pretty legit. I think that’s with pretty exceptional or those photos aren’t telling the full story—my city has similar parks but behind the photographer would be rows of houses and the city would still be loud around us. I’ve hiked there a bunch and the photos are representative. If you’re near the edge of the park you’ll be able to hear cars as there are unfortunately large roadways nearby, but for the most part the trees tend to block out the noise.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        > At this point, maybe, because we’ve leveled any forests immediately around cities for suburban sprawl. In the general case, we've leveled forests for food production--originally Native American tribes cleared forest to help them harvest bison en masse and then the descendants of Europeans cleared forest for agriculture. Cities and suburbs eventually came to displace land that was previously used for agriculture. But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. > But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. I mean, this is true in a contrived sense--if you plan your city from its initial settlement and create strict nature preserves then yeah, you can probably have your urban/natural juxtaposition, but that's pretty hard to achieve in a democratic context (good luck keeping this a popular priority over the decades and centuries). Your best bet is starting next to a federally-protected forest so residents of your city can't easily decide they want to expand into it. In whatever case, "starting fresh" is the least realistic option.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Most towns and suburbs don't have acres of wild forest in them. That's not exactly a unique "flaw" of cities. Not "in" them obviously, but suburbs can often have expanses of nature right next to them unlike dense cities. Living in a suburb, I can walk to all the necessities of day to day life but in just a 5 minute bike ride I can be into the forest where I can ride for hours on end without seeing any sign of civilization. It is a wonderful escape from the stress of 24x7 slack and jira.

throwaway894345 5y ago

A few hundred acres of forest is very different than a few hundred acres of soccer pitches, tennis courts, playgrounds, lawns, gardens, etc with a few acres of bird sanctuary, wetland, or prairie strewn about. It’s better than concrete, but it’s not nature.

standardUser 5y ago
Most towns and suburbs don't have acres of wild forest in them. That's not exactly a unique "flaw" of cities.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  What a bizarre constraint. Of course the forest isn’t in the town. You live in a suburb or town or (this is going to blow some minds in this thread) acreage outside of town that is at most a reasonable drive to nature. My criticism of cities is that a lot of them are hours away from anything that anyone would call nature (although this thread has made me aware that there are a shockingly large number of people who have never actually seen nature and for whom the word conjures up images of their local urban park).
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    > My criticism of cities is that a lot of them are hours away from anything that anyone would call nature This is only because the suburbs are often sprawled in between the city and any nature that might have been nearby. It’d be a heck of a lot easier to get to from the city if you didn’t have miles and miles of low-density suburbs in each direction. Anyway, “local urban parks” is a pretty broad category. It’s not just tiny parks we’re talking about; here’s one near me: https://fow.org/visit-the-park/photo-gallery/ https://fow.org/visit-the-park/photo-gallery/
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > This is only because the suburbs are often sprawled in between the city and any nature that might have been nearby. Agreed, but I don’t think there’s a realistic world where you have dense urban cores immediately juxtaposed with forest, especially considering how m any people are advocating for accelerated urbanization (moving people from suburbs and rural areas). Sure, that park looks pretty legit. I think that’s with pretty exceptional or those photos aren’t telling the full story—my city has similar parks but behind the photographer would be rows of houses and the city would still be loud around us.
      - ryukafalz 5y ago
        > Agreed, but I don’t think there’s a realistic world where you have dense urban cores immediately juxtaposed with forest, especially considering how m any people are advocating for accelerated urbanization (moving people from suburbs and rural areas). At this point, maybe, because we’ve leveled any forests immediately around cities for suburban sprawl. But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. > Sure, that park looks pretty legit. I think that’s with pretty exceptional or those photos aren’t telling the full story—my city has similar parks but behind the photographer would be rows of houses and the city would still be loud around us. I’ve hiked there a bunch and the photos are representative. If you’re near the edge of the park you’ll be able to hear cars as there are unfortunately large roadways nearby, but for the most part the trees tend to block out the noise.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        > At this point, maybe, because we’ve leveled any forests immediately around cities for suburban sprawl. In the general case, we've leveled forests for food production--originally Native American tribes cleared forest to help them harvest bison en masse and then the descendants of Europeans cleared forest for agriculture. Cities and suburbs eventually came to displace land that was previously used for agriculture. But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. > But in the general case, if you’re starting fresh, urbanization makes it easier to leave the forest intact than if you sprawl out with low-density housing. I mean, this is true in a contrived sense--if you plan your city from its initial settlement and create strict nature preserves then yeah, you can probably have your urban/natural juxtaposition, but that's pretty hard to achieve in a democratic context (good luck keeping this a popular priority over the decades and centuries). Your best bet is starting next to a federally-protected forest so residents of your city can't easily decide they want to expand into it. In whatever case, "starting fresh" is the least realistic option.
- jjav 5y ago
  > Most towns and suburbs don't have acres of wild forest in them. That's not exactly a unique "flaw" of cities. Not "in" them obviously, but suburbs can often have expanses of nature right next to them unlike dense cities. Living in a suburb, I can walk to all the necessities of day to day life but in just a 5 minute bike ride I can be into the forest where I can ride for hours on end without seeing any sign of civilization. It is a wonderful escape from the stress of 24x7 slack and jira.