Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In regards to all the votes for NYC, I would think any coastal city would have a leg up just because the water forces nature to be very integrated into the city's fabric. Cities with wide suburban bands that go all the way around, OTOH, are to me much more "divorced" from nature. So start with any city that has a complete outer-belt freeway. The most divorced, would be cities with wide suburban bands plus wide agricultural development outside that.
That isn't in the actual city of LV though, and I think that's the point of this thread.
Then I certainly hope the NYC defenders aren't going to use "the ocean" or parks that are in the metro area or just a few hours away, to claim that NYC is "teeming with nature"
I think there's also a case for Dallas and Oklahoma City but I don't really want to start a fight about that.
I, for one, would like to hear it. Is it because they're plains cities? What am I missing? Better yet, what is everyone else missing? All of these are within the city of Dallas
Then I certainly hope the NYC defenders aren't going to use "the ocean" or parks that are in the metro area or just a few hours away, to claim that NYC is "teeming with nature"
They wouldn't need to since there's nature within the city itself. Definitely more than Vegas has.
If you want to talk about depressing, try living in the upper Midwest where you are trapped in your house at least five months a year during winter...
The only people here who hole themselves up in their homes all winter are the ones who want to be miserable. The rest of us enjoy outdoor activities in the winter months and make the best of it...honestly, how many other places in the country have reliable snow cover all winter long?
I love bundling up and going on a brisk walk around the lake in the middle of winter on a brilliantly sunny day. It can be -10ºF and still feel great in the sun! I also really love the way the snow sounds like styrofoam when you walk on it in those temps. All it takes to feel comfortable on an especially cold day is the correct amount of layering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_Cabbie
Or being up there when it goes 3-4-5 days in a row of being clouds and you don't see the Sun. THAT is depressing.
Five days of overcast skies in the winter is nothing, and it almost never stays cloudy for that long here in Minnesota, anyway. I actually find it depressing when it's sunny every single day; I like how the weather here changes with the seasons and with my mood.
I, for one, would like to hear it. Is it because they're plains cities? What am I missing? Better yet, what is everyone else missing? All of these are within the city of Dallas
Am I the one missing something? All four of those pictures show various degrees of a human built or manipulated environment, not a natural one.
NYC. Take away Central Park and the place is a parking lot.
NYC has a higher proportion of green space/parkland than any other major U.S. city, and I would wager a lower proportion of parking lots than any other major U.S. city.
Am I the one missing something? All four of those pictures show various degrees of a human built or manipulated environment, not a natural one.
Those are parks and reservoirs, but there are still plenty of naturally occurring woodlands and wetlands within the city (which some of those pictures actually demonstrate whether you realize it or not)
There is only a fraction of this nation's land that has been virtually untouched or unaltered by human hands. Still, does it matter if a tree was planted or came to be on its own? It's still a tree. It still cleans the air. It still acts as a home for numerous species. Am I wrong?
Regardless, there's no way Dallas has the absolute least amount of completely natural areas on that poll, so it shouldn't have any votes in the first place. I have no choice but to assume that those who did vote for it have never been there.
Wow guys! I didn't think I was being snide at all! ... To the poster who said "Having a whole foods around the corner doesn't make one any closer to nature." My point in mentioning the food desert really had nothing to do with the concept of access to fresh foods at all - rather I was referring to the correlation of demographics with the food desert, and the extreme lack of exposure that demographic has to anywhere outside of their immediate do-able transportation.
People who live in our nation's food deserts, including those of Detroit, Chicago, New York, etc ... I think, are the areas with the least access to nature simply because they do not have the means or the funds to practically enjoy the luxury of nature that the rest of us take advantage of.
I certainly did not mean to sound snide in any way - and I will be the first to admit I want to see Detroit succeed again, as well as Cleveland and Buffalo for that matter!
Well, 1) Detroit's actual food deserts are in neighborhoods where most residents own a car. So driving to have access to nature (or a grocery store) wouldn't be a problem.
2) That's still pretty strange to connect food deserts to a lack of access to nature. Even if you weren't being snide that's not a correlation I'd see as very strong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
