In one place, buildings and roads are all around you, all easy access.
In the other, you are isolated, rocks, trees, and surf are accessible through rambles and side roads.
One is full of people, products, services and distractions. You can sit at lunch and watch the seagulls below.
The other is devoid of human influences. You bring your sandwich and walk the sand, seagulls following your footsteps, hoping for a crumb.
Ambition, martini, leather chairs..
Water sprays,sea weeds, fishy entrails.
Feeling safe and accomplished, having lunch with your friends in power-suits, air-conditioned, retreated. The ocean is a one dimensional painting behind you.
Feeling adventurous and wild, leaving your cave to get wet, cold, drowned by loud screeching of seagulls. Tides and waves and sea birds have erased your footprints.
38 comments:
you know...i have always liked living outside of the city...close enough i can get in when i want but far enough to retreat when i need to...
Actually they both sound good to me today. Although our snow is melting, it's wet, drab, and COLD. If I were to win the lottery I think I would live in both worlds because there are attractions that each offers that the other doesn't. But, on my fixed income I can live reasonably well in a rural area and make occasional treks into the city. After those trips I'm usually ready for the peace and solitude of rural life.
I'd like to have both!
If I were mega rich, I'd live somewhere warm near the water in winter, and someplace cool near the water in summer. I might like my warm winters closer to the city than my summers.
For living I would choose out of a city: I like to be able to visit, but don't want to live so close to so many. I am glad not everyone agrees with me, because there would be a lot less that was rural if they did!
I'll go with Brian Miller on this one.
I'd live right where I do, not in the city or the country, but in a suburb close enough to both. I love where I live, except I'd like the Pacific Ocean to be 30 minutes away.
I love what cities have to offer yet can apreciate the quiet tranquility of rural settings. I want both.
I love the solitude of a mountain town, but I also love all the action of a big city. I would like to live in the middle of both worlds. In other words, I want to be surrounded by trees, rocks, streams and on the side of a mountain that is only twenty minutes from the city. Where is that place?
The first picture is Monte Carlo, the French Riviera.
The second is right here in Southern Oregon, the Oregon Riviera.
Give me a seaside village anytime ...that's why I'm moving to one.
I love the city. But then again, I want privacy. Hmmm....
R, my husband just got back home from a trip to NY. The first morning he awoke looking out the window at the garden, he said, "I cannot imagine living there (NY). It is darker than I remember, people crowded together in small spaces... ". We love where we are.
I'm good with where I live, in a quiet green suburb of a west coast city.
hmmm there is a good thought provoker.
I thikn if I had an opportunity to choose, I would try to find a happy medium. I too would have to say Brian said it best. I want the serenity but close enough to go into a small city and get socialization & find things I need (like good restaurants!)
I would love to live in the centre of the city. I've had dreams of living in New York city.
I live in the remote place now. No convenience, not even a good grocery store. I am happy here but do wish to move to where the hussle and bussle is. And experience night life :))
I'd like the best of both worlds. So two homes, please! ;)
I love living smack dab in the middle of my wonderful town. And we have 7 months a year of beautiful weather, and everything that a much larger city offers, minus the crime. But I do enjoy a vacation home by the water.
Looking at everyone's comments, it's clear most would love to have it both ways. That's what makes traveling so fun...stepping out of a comfort zone and experiencing something new that makes you happy to say "nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there"...or better yet, "Home is where the heart is".
I love the rugged seaside but I like my home comforts so I need shops etc.
I live wherever I am. The rest is just scenery
I live exactly as I wish--in two places...I like snow but have taken my last fall on the ice...no more of that! So it's summer in Iowa and winter in Florida...someday I'll have to make the choice, though...to live in only one place. Can't think about that right now...
I would like a home in both places. I crave nature but am at the age when convenience looks inviting.
Always away from people. Always closer to nature. My spirit has always pulled me to the desert, the farm field, the forest.
What about you? I laugh, as though your post were not stacked.
xo
erin
You live in a wonderful spot in the world...and so do I. I would love to come visit BOTH places and stay for a while,...but then there is home,-family and friends that make it where I always want to be!
I'm definitely a country mouse - I love the untouched areas :)
I live in a reclusive cove in the smoky mountains and love it! Can't handle the city anymore.
I would have to say, hands down, the natural environment! My husband and I have already decided our retirement won't be in a city. It's just not what we enjoy.
I'll take wild nature anytime! I'm a bit of a loner and the city doesn't mesh with my moods. The howl of wind and water is music to my ears.....
I love living where I do...5 miles from 'town' but with woods across the street from my house. I'd love to try city living for a short while, though, just to experience it. And then there's the beach.....but much too expensive!! Blessings!
Rocks (Precambrian shield), water, coniferous forest. Cut my own wood, paddle my canoe. The kind of country in which I spent my summers when I was young. Or maybe the western shore of Wales (or Canada, or Oregon). That's where my heart and soul reside.
But I'm here in a city, 100 yards or so from a river (now half-covered with ice). Given my health, I need to be close to medical facilities. C'est la vie!
As I do now, away from town, in the country, but I can drive and be with friends and go to market.
This would be a hard choice for many of us. I've never lived in a really remote area but the appeal is there. I think I'd prefer somewhere in between. A place near enough to civilization in an emergency but with quiet appeal. I think the choice gets harder as we get older. When we are older we need the convenience of stores, doctors, etc. but the hustle-bustle of the city can be overwhelming. I think I'll opt for a more quiet area.
Delightfully provocative question! If I may answer with a bit of contrarian thinking: I've always wanted to live in a lighthouse. These days, with the magic of the Internet, you can live in a physically isolated area and still retain as much connectedness to the outside world as you wish.
As a writer, I could possibly have my cake and eat it, too. My wife, on the other hand, would beg to disagree :)
I love living somewhere outside the city or town - near nature. If I had money, I'd move somewhere tropical.
I like living in Edinburgh, it's a small city with lots of green areas and easy access to the Scottish countryside
Definitely the best of both the worlds, which is what I prefer. Not sure I'd want to live 24/7 in either but a happy medium would be nice.
I like living in the peace and quiet and the open spaces with the city at my fingertips whenever I need a break from the seclusion. So they both have their advantages and conveniences.
thank you for posting. great photo's
Post a Comment