I think the root problem with single family homes is not their existence, but several factors: 1) They are implicitly subsidised by cities in the form of havin

I think the root problem with single family homes is not their existence, but several factors: 1) They are implicitly subsidised by cities in the form of having way more infrastructure and public services dedicated to them, per-capita, than denser forms of development. Even though taxes in suburbs may be expensive, the massive amount of infrastructure it takes to support thousands of single-family homes, most with at least two drivers, means that suburb dwellers are not paying their fair share of taxes. It's like someone at a restaurant ordering a $200 bottle of wine for themselves and only being asked to pay $50 more when it comes time to split the check. In fact, in many places, single family suburbs are actually a net loss for the city, depending on the tax rates and how sparse they are. That's also not to mention things like carbon emissions not being properly priced into the cost of gasoline. It would be much less attractive, relatively, to live far away from employment if this were fixed. 2) In many places, zoning makes it illegal to build anything BUT single-family homes. If we could eliminate these two issues -- have people living in suburbs pay the true cost, and make it legal to build pretty anything else, then I think most people wouldn't have a problem with suburbs. But then, I also suspect that suburbs would be much, much less attractive if that were the case.