I certainly didn't frame anything as a dichotomy between suburbs and urban area. I did generalize cities as not having easy access to nature, which is strictly true even if there are exceptions that prove the rule. Generalization doesn't imply dichotomy.
Perhaps we're not gaining much from this clarification except resetting the stage, but the dichotomy I was seeing was anti-car vs pro-car, which for America I feel is synonymous with urban density vs suburbia due to the way zoning laws pretty much mandate suburbia be pro-car. The bit I was specifically rebutting was that anti-car is somehow anti-nature, which was what I felt you were implying.
My hope would be that a city planned more around human level interaction with less focus on cars would reduce urban size overall, and reduce suburban sprawl. Better integrating nature all the way from the outer burbs and in toward the city.
Having visited many of Japans incredibly dense cities, and ending up yearning for the sight of a tree, I can totally see the negatives of extreme density, and that's definitely not what I'd want from a low-car city. I also live in a fairly exceptional city in regards to nature, I have national parks outside my doorstep and can ride from suburbia into the city and from the city to the beach along reserves and greenways, not just parks but regenerated forest, so I can see the very thing I'm advocating for and I fucking love it. The bad parts of my city are always related to how car infrastructure has ruined that in some way. That's why I'm passionate about it.
> The dichotomy I was seeing was anti-car vs pro-car, which for America I feel is synonymous with urban density vs suburbia due to the way zoning laws pretty much mandate suburbia be pro-car. The bit I was specifically rebutting was that anti-car is somehow anti-nature, which was what I felt you were implying.
I'm glad we're clearing up the confusion. I certainly don't think that suburban zoning laws are the pinnacle of city planning or anything like that, and I'm optimistic that we can have walkable spaces without density. And even where there's density, I think there's a lot that can be improved.
I also think the anti-car message would go over better if there was less spite. For example, in Chicago anti-car activists want to remove Lake Shore Drive: the only major N/S thoroughfare--I90 runs NW/SE--it doesn't segregate the city, it isn't useful to commuters to/from the suburbs, and its removal will only push traffic onto the side streets making the city less pedestrian-friendly. But it spites drivers, so it's worthwhile. Instead, I wish these people would focus more on making our existing public transit more appealing: advocate for cleaner buses and train cars, advocate for the enforcement of laws and rules regarding (for example) stabbing, smoking, urinating, blasting music, panhandling, etc., advocate for punctuality. Once we have a good handle on our existing public transit infrastructure, we can then start thinking about smaller improvements--increasing capacity (especially during rush hour) so people don't have to be packed into cars like sardines, and then expand the network. Once you've made public transit attractive and practical for more people, then you can start working on deprecating car transit.
