Hacker News Reader

Comment by Causality1 | Hacker News Reader

Not surprising. As someone who grew up in rural and suburban environments, big cities feel intensely depressing. I go there and nothing I look at makes me feel happy. I'm sure people who grew up there feel differently and see things I don't see, but for me Manhattan feels as dead as the surface of Mars.

View on HN

Manhattan has Central Park, which is a forest. Compare vs the suburban sprawl of modern design where it's an ocean of tract housing with stunted little fresh-planted trees and I'd say the reverse is generally true. I can see the argument for rural living, but not for modern suburbia.

Manhattan feels like really one of the best cases for trees outside of rural areas. A large percentage of the residential neighborhoods are in walking distance of a big forest... even other boroughs of NYC are mostly worse for that. Some other cities have better weekend access to forests, e.g. in L.A. you can drive to the mountains, but there aren't many with better large forests actually in the city. Maybe DC with Rock Creek Park.

DC and the surrounding metro area both have a surprising amount of trees. I work in Tyson's Corner, not far from DC at all, and the view from the office is trees as far as the eyes can see with occasional outcroppings of towers. Rock Creek Park basically bisects the entire city as well.

Griffith Park (4,217 acres) isn't a forest exactly, but pretty close to it, and right in the heart of Los Angeles city.

Ah that's a good point! I even used to live in the LA area years ago, but I lived far enough east of there that the Angeles National Forest was much closer, so I forgot that Griffith Park exists.

This is going to seem pedantic but like just sharing my perspective. Central Park sooo doesn't feel like a forest to me. It's like walking around a crowded lawn (ok maybe thats a bit dramatic). But Central park really doesn't do it for me; when I'm in NYC I need to spend time in Prospect Park (which is closerrr to a forest) or else I go crazy

Are you sure you’ve explored the whole thing? The crowded lawn is certainly one part of it but there are whole swaths up near 110th that are much quieter as well as large dense tree sections e.g. near the zoo.

Having a couple trees does not make it a forest. have you ever walked out in real nature?

This is in central park: https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/514446

Most is not like that mind you. But not bad for a city forest

Not the original complainer, but that looks quite sterile to me. Apart from the trees there's very little vegetation, beyong the odd fern - no moss, no rotting logs, no undergrowth or leaf-mold floor. It doesn't look moist enough. Just dry, dusty dirt.

Those are paths people walked on. Since there’s a lot of foot traffic they’re wider than regular forests.

But yeah, it’a city forest. Not the same as wild, but more forest-ty than the discussion implied I think. Most visitors only see the south park of central park.

Rural and small town living is the way to go for me. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here defending the aesthetics of cookie-cutter suburbs.

To clarify, I meant 80s and 90s suburbs, not the godawful European-looking Stepford-wife monstrosities they build now. Suburbs with tree cover where you may or may not be able to even see the house next door. The kind where every house looks different because it was built by a different company and none of the lots are smaller than half an acre.

That's not very dense even for suburbia. There is a lot of suburban housing from that era that doesn't look like that at all.

Perfection to me is a land plot surrounded by woods with no neighbors for miles, maybe with a pond or a stream going through.

Suburbs can have vast canopies. They just often choose not to, feeling bare grass is the most attractive.

(I personally don't understand the appeal of a neighborhood that has been methodically expunged of shade)

Trees are expensive to maintain if they are between closely packed houses. Wealthier suburbs have more trees than poorer.

> Trees are expensive to maintain

Not really. This is just a problem of poorly designed gardens, bad choice of species, and greed.

Trees are valuable and fine wood species are always in risk of being stolen. I said this after seeing this afternoon a street reformed and notice the space left by a big blue cedar and a nice Beech that suddenly dissapeared in the center of the field for no reason. Both around 80 years old and perfectly healthy.

Most people would freak if the bank in their street is robbed but don't even notice when the park in their street is robbed.

The difference with New York City is that it’s old and spent a lot of time and money on parks.

Any modern development will be a tree wasteland long term, as all of the topsoil is generally scraped away and sold, and the heavy equipment packs down the soil.

I agree re: suburbia, but for different reasons.

For people who actually grew up in nature, Central Park feels as synthetic as everything else in the city. Every inch is landscaped and planned out.

It's nothing like taking a walk in the woods, with the plethora of wild plants and animals. It feels like a sad attempt by a city to be less of a city, but you can't replicate or build nature.

I'm with you, having grown up rural I can't stand being in the city. Makes me feel boxed in and anxious. But I've got friends who are the exact opposite, one who grew up in NYC and now lives outside of Boston who has to get back to NYC at least once every two weeks or she gets depressed. But I've also got a son who grew up here rural with me and can't ever seem to get enough of NYC. So... takes all kinds, I guess.

It's because a lack of variation in people gets depressing. I live in the mountains with a population that's smaller than the small town I was raised in, in the LA metro. I need to get back to a major city at least once a month; I need to feel that enveloping feeling of wonder and possibility since things get to feeling so stagnant in the mountains after a bit; I need to see people driving at their ambitions with their mom and pop shops that have these creative gimmicks that you can tell they spent late nights thinking of as opposed to people on mountain time who don't really give a damn about their work and know that by simply existing they can scrape by.

To each their own. There are those of us that would die of boredom and depression in a rural or suburban environment. To us the city is where is at, especially a place like NYC.

boredom comes from within

I'm like you, I get tree withdrawal sometimes. I couldn't live in a desert either. Joshua trees or mesquite don't scratch the same instinctual itch.

What are you taking about? On Mars at least you can be left in peace (and in the darkness at night) to contemplate the wonders of the universe, for as long as your oxygen lasts. Try that in Manhattan.

I grew up in the city. Urban and rural is great but suburban is depressing. Socially isolating an fake nature with fewer trees in particular. Worst of both worlds.

I grew up in the burbs and am the exact opposite. After six months in London, I felt incredibly isolated when I returned to the burbs.

The aspect that no one is mentioning in this anecdote exchange: where their friends and family live.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com