Hacker News Reader

Comment by abledon | Hacker News Reader

I can't fathom how people grow up in cities with no access to nature, (the only nature available is hyper populated parks with dogshit and cigarette butts routinely cleaned up when the sanitation workers comb over the grounds). When the mind is developing, to have no access to real nature outside of cities,... how does it affect the mind, adhd, anxiety etc... seems like a no brainer to design heavy nature exposure into the cities of the future

View on HN

> the only nature available is hyper populated parks with dogshit and cigarette butts

wow, that's a hyper negative view of cities. am I spoiled by knowing that there are large "parks" around me, ranging from 200 acres to 1300+ acres that are within walking or bus distance? hardly the dogshit and cigarette butt filled parks that some others are describing.

I grew up in SE Utah and have lived in DC/Maryland for some years of my adult life. To people like me, the 1300 acre parks a a very far cry from "nature". Probably just that perspective.

I grew up in the Midwest, experienced a lot of great nature and hiking around the US and Asia, but live in Tokyo and enjoy big cities. From my perspective—if the city is clean and quiet (my Apple watch says 95% of my neighborhood has an ambient noise level of 35dB, and I live near a popular central Tokyo station), and has enough nice parks near me (definitely don't need anywhere close to 1300 acres for that), that does the job—I don't feel any need whatsoever to live in immediate proximity to amazing natural amenities, and when I do go to them, a couple days is more than I need.

Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world.

> Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world.

The YouTube channel "Not just bikes" talks about this. In the USA, it is commonly seen that there are only two possible configurations for human settlements: sprawling suburbs, or Manhattan-style high-density towers. The medium-density style of city common across a lot of Europe and Asia is not very well known in the USA and Canada outside of a select few older cities which developed to a large enough size before the automobile took over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o

I don't think that's negative at all. I find it pretty accurate. Cities are so desperate for parks, that they call concrete paved areas named as parks with a minimum amount of green. Parks !== nature. If your only experience with nature is a city park, then you haven't really experienced nature.

i've been to many cites, and many suburbs. in my city, we have suburbs that are full of trees and parks. i've even seen a kangaroo and a koala nesar the city. then we in the same city have these car bound arid wastelands. both are true. australia and america have cities like this, all their cities have this wasteland. travelling in europe, you see the medium cities. many trams, bike lanes and trains to get between the wastelands which still exist and the nice parks in the nice places. the european model ( i say this as a cyclist) is so much preferable.

> I can't fathom how people grow up in cities with no access to nature,

They don't, in general. compared to suburban or even heavily utilized rural areas. Neither farms nor manicured suburban parks are any more nature than cities are.

And cities can be as proximate to natural preserves as anything else can be.

If you don't mean actual nature, just green outdoor spaces, cities often incorporate and provide access to them.

Cities are great for preserving nature because the alternative is suburban sprawl. However, we definitely need greener cities and better car-free access to nature. Good train links with local buses are a proven solution.

> However, we definitely need greener cities and better car-free access to nature.

Access to nature and preserving nature are opposed goals. Access to nature is destruction facilitating further destruction.

Sort of... ultimately you can't provide access to nature and destroy nature. However, policy in most developed countries is exactly this. I am advocating a balanced approach where people have access to nature in a way that is less damaging.

e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/14/tourists-car...

I agree, and I think part of the answer is to have access to unmanaged (or very lightly managed) land. For a kid, a wildflower meadow is a thing of wonder. Related, how many US states have a "right to roam" ?

I don't think right to roam is encoded in law like it is in some European countries but it was common behavior in the 1970s growing up. Much less so in the 21st century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com