The next quote I want to talk about is "as cities grew darker and dirtier, governments began to realize that citizens needed access to green spaces" (page 412). It really is interesting to me that we are so okay with destroying land to create these giant cities, but then say oh wait we need some green back, and artificially create these parks that the text mentions. It in my mind seems counteractive. We destroy something just to add an artificial version of the same thing back in. I do understand that it might not have been known how large these cities would get or that so much land would be devastated. But I cannot understand how they went into creating the cities with no natural land left behind. I am from just a little outside of Chicago. You can walk miles down the maze of roads and alleys and not find any grass. Sure there are trees planted on the side of the road, but they are in contained little square cutouts in the concrete. It is almost upsetting that we are so okay with destroying our land. It is good to see that there were any efforts implemented but still saddening. 

The last quote I want to speak about is "the argument that can be made that, despite the rise of the great American city, there has always been a back-to-nature push in this country" (page 418). I think this quote is more of something I would agree with. Sort of like I explained after the last quote, we destroy it, but then seek it back. I feel the back to nature push may be out of guilt for how much we have destroyed. Or out of fear that we are going too far with our destroying of land to make our cities. Regardless of why we do push back for nature, we should and need to be. There is a country song where the lyrics suggest thanking the lord for the land we do have because there isn't going to be any more made (Buy Dirt by Jordan Davis). Which I fully believe to be true. Again this is really eye opening, not because I was not aware of it before but because I am being forced to think about it and actually apply myself to the topic.