4 ms·

I live in an admittedly more rural part of the USA but one of the things I love doing is hopping in my Jeep and going out into the many thousands of miles of of

I live in an admittedly more rural part of the USA but one of the things I love doing is hopping in my Jeep and going out into the many thousands of miles of off-road wilderness to camp, go shooting, or go for a hike, where more often than not I never have to interact with another human being. My "quality of life" is 1000% better than if I required a crowded train to take me to an urban "communal space" in order to enjoy nature.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Move to Ottawa Canada to get the best of both works. Gatineau Park, which contains hundreds of kilometers of wilderness trails is 3 miles from the Parliament buildings in downtown Ottawa, population 1 million. You'll meet people at the trail head but it's easy to hike 20 km without seeing another. https://www.google.com/search?q=gatineau+park&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=gatineau+park&tbm=isch
giraffe_lady 3y ago
If you work a "normal" job eg one that requires proximity to people this is basically a role play lifestyle. Subsidized by the cheap gas and roads that make personal vehicle use affordable. We'd all love to cut out to nature at will, and we should build infrastructure that does allow us all to.
conjecTech 3y ago
That is not the alternative being discussed here. 80% of the US population is urban. We could not undo that without a huge degradation is quality of life. Cities are incredible engines for wealth creation. The alternative more or less imposed by law is suburbs that don't have access to communal space or nature.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // The alternative more or less imposed by law What do you mean imposed by law?
  - conjecTech 3y ago
    I'm referring to things like single-family zoning, minimum parking requirements, and the subsidization & forced construction of highways through city centers. The situation we have today isn't some spontaneous expression of consumer preference. Federal, state and local governments have made building walkable alternatives nearly impossible and prohibitively expensive.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      This is an interesting set of points, thank you. But they seem a bit orthogonal to the conclusion. For example - the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) but does not have a lot of multi-family. When the state attempted to push through multi-family zoning, the town and every other town like it pushed back. Because it is our preference to live in this style, and we're not eager to lift zoning even if it can eventually mean I have to walk 5 mins to a Starbucks rather than ten. One town over has many more 6+ story buildings and townhouses. So folks over there have made a different choice about what kind of situation they want to live in. Is their town more walkable than mine? Not really but it does have even more variety on Main St due to increased density - great. They were clearly able to do the thing you're talking about because they wanted to.
      - conjecTech 3y ago
        Sounds like you live in Long Island. You seem to admit that if not for the local government putting restrictions on how people use their land, individuals would choose to build multi-family structures. It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population.
        xyzelement 3y ago
        You're right about where I live. // It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population. I think we agree here, the point is that the law aligns (rather than contradicts) the desires of the local population. Which is different than people dying to replace their colonials with tenements but the government not letting them. To some extent "everything" is compelled choice. I am precluded from building a cement factory in the middle of Bryce national park, but that probably is in line with the majority of people's desires. The original comment above asserted that laws are forcing our communities to look as they do. My point is that the laws seem to by-and-large enable us to have our communities as we wish them to be.
stetrain 3y ago
To me the hell is in the middle. Your own single-family home but so close to the neighbors that it's basically "I'm not touching you!" with enough space for the HOA-paid lawn service to squeak their mowers through twice a week. Perfectly manicured grass, and no trees except a few sproutlings along the road because they were all cut down to raise the fill for the new roads and houses. Your friend could live half a mile away as the crow flies, but they live in a different gated HOA community than you do, and you'd have to trespass through yards to walk directly there, so the route by road is more like 5 miles. Every task you may want to do requires getting in your car and sitting at three traffic lights minimum. The car pickup line at the elementary school overflows onto the main road everyday at 3pm with hundreds of Chevy Tahoes each picking up one child. These children may live within a few miles of the school but sending them out to walk or bike along the 50mph six-lane road that connects all of the gated communities is of course outright dangerous. Shops and restaurants are dominated by chains because there's so little spontaneity of finding a new place, and not enough concentration of population or foot traffic for cool local businesses to find a niche. ... I'm totally cool with living out in the woods, in a true rural lifestyle. I also like being places where maybe my personal living space is a bit more closed in but I get something in return for that. Walkable amenities. A sense of neighborhood or town community. Walking and biking trails. Cool local restaurants and shops and breweries that couldn't survive in the low-density rural environment or in the suburban hellscape. It's that weird in-between that the US loved to build for the last 50 years, and is still building in a lot of places, that just seems dystopian to me. Edit: And ironically lots of us Americans love visiting both of those other ends of the spectrum, and talk about what a lovely time they had, and then go back to their gated HOA suburb and get ready for the next day's school run.
- JohnClark1337 3y ago
  [dead]
- darshings 3y ago
  I’m currently living in a place a lot like you describe, and I hate it, but for now it’s the only economically feasible option for my family. Walkable neighborhoods in my town are outrageously expensive, and while I could appreciate living in a more rural setting, anything reasonably close to my town that would allow for reasonable commutes is also outrageously expensive. The current economic climate kind of forces people into these suburban hellscapes :/ I would move in a heartbeat if there was an economically viable option.
poorlyknit 3y ago
> many thousands of miles of off-road wilderness That's a form of third place. You don't need to be actively sharing it with other people but everyone still agrees that it's shared.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Move to Ottawa Canada to get the best of both works. Gatineau Park, which contains hundreds of kilometers of wilderness trails is 3 miles from the Parliament buildings in downtown Ottawa, population 1 million. You'll meet people at the trail head but it's easy to hike 20 km without seeing another. https://www.google.com/search?q=gatineau+park&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=gatineau+park&tbm=isch

giraffe_lady 3y ago

If you work a "normal" job eg one that requires proximity to people this is basically a role play lifestyle. Subsidized by the cheap gas and roads that make personal vehicle use affordable. We'd all love to cut out to nature at will, and we should build infrastructure that does allow us all to.

conjecTech 3y ago

That is not the alternative being discussed here. 80% of the US population is urban. We could not undo that without a huge degradation is quality of life. Cities are incredible engines for wealth creation. The alternative more or less imposed by law is suburbs that don't have access to communal space or nature.

xyzelement 3y ago
// The alternative more or less imposed by law What do you mean imposed by law?
- conjecTech 3y ago
  I'm referring to things like single-family zoning, minimum parking requirements, and the subsidization & forced construction of highways through city centers. The situation we have today isn't some spontaneous expression of consumer preference. Federal, state and local governments have made building walkable alternatives nearly impossible and prohibitively expensive.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    This is an interesting set of points, thank you. But they seem a bit orthogonal to the conclusion. For example - the town I live in is fairly compact (.15 acre lots, people can easily walk to main st.) but does not have a lot of multi-family. When the state attempted to push through multi-family zoning, the town and every other town like it pushed back. Because it is our preference to live in this style, and we're not eager to lift zoning even if it can eventually mean I have to walk 5 mins to a Starbucks rather than ten. One town over has many more 6+ story buildings and townhouses. So folks over there have made a different choice about what kind of situation they want to live in. Is their town more walkable than mine? Not really but it does have even more variety on Main St due to increased density - great. They were clearly able to do the thing you're talking about because they wanted to.
    - conjecTech 3y ago
      Sounds like you live in Long Island. You seem to admit that if not for the local government putting restrictions on how people use their land, individuals would choose to build multi-family structures. It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population.
      - xyzelement 3y ago
        You're right about where I live. // It is a compelled choice, even if only for a minority of the population. I think we agree here, the point is that the law aligns (rather than contradicts) the desires of the local population. Which is different than people dying to replace their colonials with tenements but the government not letting them. To some extent "everything" is compelled choice. I am precluded from building a cement factory in the middle of Bryce national park, but that probably is in line with the majority of people's desires. The original comment above asserted that laws are forcing our communities to look as they do. My point is that the laws seem to by-and-large enable us to have our communities as we wish them to be.

stetrain 3y ago

To me the hell is in the middle. Your own single-family home but so close to the neighbors that it's basically "I'm not touching you!" with enough space for the HOA-paid lawn service to squeak their mowers through twice a week. Perfectly manicured grass, and no trees except a few sproutlings along the road because they were all cut down to raise the fill for the new roads and houses. Your friend could live half a mile away as the crow flies, but they live in a different gated HOA community than you do, and you'd have to trespass through yards to walk directly there, so the route by road is more like 5 miles. Every task you may want to do requires getting in your car and sitting at three traffic lights minimum. The car pickup line at the elementary school overflows onto the main road everyday at 3pm with hundreds of Chevy Tahoes each picking up one child. These children may live within a few miles of the school but sending them out to walk or bike along the 50mph six-lane road that connects all of the gated communities is of course outright dangerous. Shops and restaurants are dominated by chains because there's so little spontaneity of finding a new place, and not enough concentration of population or foot traffic for cool local businesses to find a niche. ... I'm totally cool with living out in the woods, in a true rural lifestyle. I also like being places where maybe my personal living space is a bit more closed in but I get something in return for that. Walkable amenities. A sense of neighborhood or town community. Walking and biking trails. Cool local restaurants and shops and breweries that couldn't survive in the low-density rural environment or in the suburban hellscape. It's that weird in-between that the US loved to build for the last 50 years, and is still building in a lot of places, that just seems dystopian to me. Edit: And ironically lots of us Americans love visiting both of those other ends of the spectrum, and talk about what a lovely time they had, and then go back to their gated HOA suburb and get ready for the next day's school run.

JohnClark1337 3y ago
[dead]
darshings 3y ago
I’m currently living in a place a lot like you describe, and I hate it, but for now it’s the only economically feasible option for my family. Walkable neighborhoods in my town are outrageously expensive, and while I could appreciate living in a more rural setting, anything reasonably close to my town that would allow for reasonable commutes is also outrageously expensive. The current economic climate kind of forces people into these suburban hellscapes :/ I would move in a heartbeat if there was an economically viable option.

poorlyknit 3y ago

> many thousands of miles of off-road wilderness That's a form of third place. You don't need to be actively sharing it with other people but everyone still agrees that it's shared.