> Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always the best places

> Many people in suburbs who work in cities would not be able to afford living in that city, or, flat out refuse to because cities aren't always the best places for families. City/property is expensive because it is desirable. The US stopped building that kind of thing post-WW2, so the supply is finite and generally not growing anymore. Zoning is such that only car-centric, low-density developments are generally allowed. There is nothing to prevent a policy change to allow "city" building like used to happen pre-WW2: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 > Suburbs are a compromise. No, they are bad design that devours land like a locust which causes unnecessarily high energy use and has made climate change worse: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... There is no good reason for car-centric suburbs, especially when the residents do not pay the externalities of their life style.