The vast majority of suburbanites live nowhere near a 'forest'. Take Orange County, CA, or the Inland Empire. Suburb central... not a forest in sight. Meanwhile

The vast majority of suburbanites live nowhere near a 'forest'. Take Orange County, CA, or the Inland Empire. Suburb central... not a forest in sight. Meanwhile, I live in Inner Portland (like 1.5 miles from downtown) and my kids just went to an actual forest for their morning 'forest school'. Part of the problem with many American suburbs is that they're not dense enough, thus not leaving any room for nature. Portland is a much more centralized city, and things are easier to get to. A forest enclave is a few minutes drive / train ride, and the actual forest that is a pretty much continuous ring to Alaska and the Northern portions of Canada is about an 45 minute drive. Growing up in Southern California a 45 minute drive in suburbia leads you to ... more suburbia. Meanhwhile, in concentrated Portland, a 45-minute drive from the inner city leads you to... empty land. It's a very different experience. We get the best of both worlds. My kids can walk / bike to their activities; we're smack dab next to world-class museums and zoos and cultural events; and the kids get to enjoy ample time in the wilds exploring. Why anyone would choose a typical suburb over this, I cannot comprehend. The only reason that makes the most sense for me is cost. I agree living in the city can be more expensive due to the dearth of housing. Completely understand that. However, if we built it up more, it would be fine. Portland feels empty most of the time anyway. Even before COVID / protests, it still felt pretty empty, and it's in the top 25 US metros for population, so most people are going to be living in less populated areas.