Indeed, or even space to which the public can have lawful access, which differs considerably in terms of size and area. London and many other cities often have more land for public recreation than say the National Parks, where your access is conditional and linear.
In fact London's greenness is one of the things that tourists most frequently comment favourably on. When I lived in 'the Smoke' I used to enjoy walking from the Princess Di memorial park thingy in one corner of Hyde Park, across Hyde Park Corner, into Green Park then into St James's park and end up at Horseguards. A lovely long walk, totally in parkland (apart fromcrossing HPC).
such as myself, do venture to London, we particularly notice how built-up it is . . . . . . . we barely notice the patches of green that some would believe to be countryside. We don't think "Wow, such verdant countryside", we think, "Buildings everywhere !". Admittedly, a fair few of the buildings are very pleasant, but that's not the point.
No, I'm not wrong !
When country oiks
As I've already mentioned, it is a matter of perspective. Those living in even more built-up areas than London, may consider it to encapsulate the best of the English countryside; but those already living in the country, consider it to be a 'concrete jungle'.
Cities full of buildings shocker ..... (and btw, I'm a Devon Bumpkin), so I'm part of your 'we' and on balance I still call you wrong. I flew back from Shenzhen China this morning, now that IS a concrete Jungle, unremitting high-rise concrete, but in no way is London anything like on that scale. I appreciate your POV but couldn't agree less.
. . . . . . . in the same way that Linf doesn't "get"... well, anything much, really. He's a hopeless bumpkin, but quite a decent hill-climber.
I thought you knew where I lived?
Although I suppose you could have been one of a number of weirdos sat outside my flat last night.
