4 ms·
The problem isn't your preferences, but rather that so many people like you (I won't guess at your exact situation) express the same preferences only because so
by tbihl 10y ago
The problem isn't your preferences, but rather that so many people like you (I won't guess at your exact situation) express the same preferences only because so many of the significant downsides have been hidden by government funding models. That, and so many municipalities refuse to do the accrual accounting that would demonstrate just how quickly the suburban model bankrupts them.
Suburbs receive a level of service from public entities that is far in excess of that justified by the private investment there. They receive bus funding from State government that doesn't count against their school budgets. The roads and pipes reliably cost more than the houses they service.
There's nothing wrong with living in a rural house. But as long as money gets funneled disproportionately into these places, you should expect to have that decision second guessed. Plus, when all the suburbs finally have to face facts, delivering services to the suffering poor people left behind there will be an absolute disaster.
Of course, our laws regarding financing and building anything that increases density in suburban areas are hopelessly awful too. We have a sort of donut hole, if you will: cheap financing for suburban houses, and for large apartment blocks. But the logical increment of a 2-3 story building with first floor commercial is left out. Ask for a loan on that, and you'll be laughed out the door for your silly request for a non-conforming mortgage.
- rhapsodic 10y agoCity people use, and work at, the malls and airports and office parks and industrial parks and colleges and universities that exist in their suburbs. So the bus lines serve them as well. And it's to the city's benefit that suburban people can easily get into the city to spend their money at city businesses. So, while they may have some merit, I don't think your points are as cut and dried as you think they are.
- taway_1212 10y agoIf suburbs weren't subsidized, these people and businesses would reside closer to the city centre. This wouldn't impair city's functions in any way, but would save lots of money for the taxpayers.
- tbihl 10y agoI think a lot of that would happen. The would also be a lot of people who would reconfigure themselves as spokes about the hub of a rail or Transit stop. And my experience with places like that suggests to me that the net effect for everyone in the city is that it would be easier to get out into the countryside, despite there being less road capacity and more people. Anyone who's spent time in DC can probably attest to what a pilgrimage it can seem just to escape.
- int_19h 10y agoI'm in the same boat as OP, and I think it's reasonable that our preferences should come with the appropriate price tag, such that there are no hidden subsidies. Then let the market figure it out.
- Paul-ish 10y agoI'm not sure how more concentration of people in cities is such a good thing when so many already can't afford it. It seems like what you suggest would make a significant portion people go from living comfortably I'm the suburbs to being homeless in the city. Being homeless has a cost too. From the way you describe it, it seems to me that the suburbs are/were an effective social program to reduce homelessness.