Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CTHistory42 OP t1_ixveofi wrote

Reply to comment by Routine_Ad_5312 in This satellite photo shows development in the Northeast. The one dark spot in CT-MA is a National Heritage Corridor (The Last Green Valley). Pristine woodlands, clear clean rivers. Half the size of the Grand Canyon; 85% undeveloped. Learn more on Amazing Tales CT: https://AmazingTalesCT.Podbean.com by CTHistory42

Your point is well taken. NW CT is the other part of CT that is very rural - it's just not as big (or as undeveloped) as the eastern CT portion: 700,000 acres of land, of which 85% is undeveloped - much of it in the same shape as when Native Americans were the only inhabitants.

24

Boring_Garbage3476 t1_ixwvs3z wrote

The name came from commercial piolots flying into Providence and Boston. It was the only dark strip in the area.

5

readmeink t1_ixxn8kx wrote

>much of it in the same shape as when Native Americans were the only inhabitants.

That's not true. Aside from the massive clearcutting that happened in the 1800s, Native Americans used fire to shape their landscape all across North America. Early European accounts talk about how the forests had massive trees that had spaces big enough between them that you could drive a wagon through them. Furthermore, there was quite a bit of cultivated nut trees that would be harvested on a regular basis. None of the forested areas in the "Green Valley" live up to these descriptions.

Also, it's important to remember that the rural in the Green Valley is still pretty developed in comparison to many rural spaces out West. Just take a look at Google Maps to see how roads criss cross the entire area, and that most of these roads have lots of homes. The difference is a lack of infrastructure that causes light pollution.

4

CatSusk t1_ixxohvs wrote

Yes I drove across the country twice and was literally shocked at how much NOTHING there is. But the land in those places also tends to be pretty flat and barren.

3

readmeink t1_ixxq63z wrote

>But the land in those places also tends to be pretty flat and barren.

Also not true. Anywhere from the Rocky Mountains west through the Basin and Range area and into the Sierra Nevadas has the greatest differences of elevation in the country outside of Alaska. Furthermore, barren is a loaded term. Just because trees aren't thick doesn't mean the area doesn't have significant biodiversity.

−1

CTHistory42 OP t1_ixytwia wrote

I'll take your point on the condition of the forest lands being in the same shape. Perhaps some loose wording there. Simply saying that a lot of the acreage is still untouched by housing/commercial development (85%). And, I was only talking about CT, not out west. But even there, sprawl is crazy. In the 1970s, it took me three hours of driving through barren (but absolutely gorgeous) nothingness along the base of the Rocky Mountains to get from Denver to Colorado Springs. Now, due to housing development, there's only about 15-20 minutes of true untouched nature between them (and that was 10-15 years ago - last time I drove it - could be even worse by now). American land use policy stands in stark contrast to Europe, where communities have concentrated centers and the land around them remains open for nature walks and other such purposes. Having lived in Switzerland for 7 years, my family experienced this regularly. Quite a refreshing difference. Not everybody needing/wanting a 1-2 acre plot of land with a house.

3