3 ms·

Suburbs aren't defined by having personal space. That can be achieved in cities and small towns with in-fill development of high square-footage apartments, n-pl

by yterdy 3y ago

Suburbs aren't defined by having personal space. That can be achieved in cities and small towns with in-fill development of high square-footage apartments, n-plexes, and townhouses, or collective workspaces. The suburbs that people complain about are car-centric and are generally underfunded in the long-term, putting significant burdens on municipal and state finances for things like infrastructure maintenance (roads, sewers, etc.). Every suburban garage/city parking space pair is a half-dozen kids without up-to-date science textbooks and equipment.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Plenty of car centric suburbs do fine with the budget too. You got suburbs in california where homes are $2m. They aren’t hurting for road budget. High school class offerings in such a district might look downright collegiate from the additional funding the parents raise for the local school.
- yterdy 3y ago
  There are several contentious aspects to this characterization: 1) California is a noted outlier. The tax base/road budget ratio does not scale well to the rest of the country. 2) The wealth of affluent suburbs is driven by the cities they surround. The cities generate enough wealth to nominally support the market rate labor that keep them running AND the professional/managerial class that cut and run. 3) The top quintile or two of earners are likelier to live in newer developments, where the cost of maintenance has not built up yet. As regions become older and less desirable, the affluent leave and are replaced by the less-so, just as replacement costs come due. This model is a burden on the state and national levels because it's so prevalent. If, instead, the model were to have most people living were their wealth was generated - and therefore have amenities scale to means more closely - you would have fewer extremely wealthy individuals and families but a more sustainable and equitable society. I know this is anathema to many, who value getting ahead over getting together.

by yterdy 3y ago

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Plenty of car centric suburbs do fine with the budget too. You got suburbs in california where homes are $2m. They aren’t hurting for road budget. High school class offerings in such a district might look downright collegiate from the additional funding the parents raise for the local school.

yterdy 3y ago
There are several contentious aspects to this characterization: 1) California is a noted outlier. The tax base/road budget ratio does not scale well to the rest of the country. 2) The wealth of affluent suburbs is driven by the cities they surround. The cities generate enough wealth to nominally support the market rate labor that keep them running AND the professional/managerial class that cut and run. 3) The top quintile or two of earners are likelier to live in newer developments, where the cost of maintenance has not built up yet. As regions become older and less desirable, the affluent leave and are replaced by the less-so, just as replacement costs come due. This model is a burden on the state and national levels because it's so prevalent. If, instead, the model were to have most people living were their wealth was generated - and therefore have amenities scale to means more closely - you would have fewer extremely wealthy individuals and families but a more sustainable and equitable society. I know this is anathema to many, who value getting ahead over getting together.