6 ms·

> Car-centric suburbia is fiscally unsustainable ... For whom? Many people love the suburbs and hate cities. I know many people who know work 3 days from home

> Car-centric suburbia is fiscally unsustainable ... For whom? Many people love the suburbs and hate cities. I know many people who know work 3 days from home and only commute to work 2 days per week. If the suburbs are fiscally unsustainable, what about rural? What's your plan? Pack people in high-rises? Even if they don't want that?

stetrain 2y ago
It's fiscally unsustainable if more people want to live there than there are housing units, and prices climb forever. Having denser housing in some places does not mean replacing all housing with high density. There are a lot of density options between single-family home suburbs and high-rise towers. Look up "missing middle" housing. The biggest offenders are actual urban areas that should be cities but try to act like suburbs. Let cities be dense, and it will actually take some pressure off of the suburbs. People who work in cities end up living in suburbs even if they don't want to, and then commute in every day and clog up the roads. Most US major cities are still well below major European cities on residential density. If you want rural to remain rural and suburbs to remain suburbs, then let town centers and metro cities fill in density for those who want to live there.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  > The biggest offenders are actual urban areas that should be cities but try to act like suburbs. Got an example?
  - stetrain 2y ago
    https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1008/eu-and-us-cities-by-population-density-of-urban-area/ https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1008/eu-and-us-cities-b... US cities are generally fairly low density. That pushes more people to the suburbs, or low density suburb-like development at the edge of the city, driving up prices there and adding commuter traffic that the city pays to handle. If people want to live in the suburbs that's fine, but given housing prices in most cities I think there is greater demand than supply for residential there.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    If you'd like a specific example: https://www.sparefoot.com/moving/city-guides/4385319-visualizing-atlantas-population-density/ https://www.sparefoot.com/moving/city-guides/4385319-visuali... Really any city that you can think of that's surrounded by a spaghetti tangle of highways full of commuters every morning and evening, which is most of them in the US.
davidw 2y ago
How about legalize the high-rises - and especially things like 3 and 4 story buildings with commercial underneath - and see what shakes out? It's difficult to say how much demand there is for that kind of thing if we've made it illegal in so many places. I don't doubt that many people have a preference for more suburban type places, but even those could be a lot more flexible and adaptable. A 4-plex here, a corner store there... that's not big city stuff. The city I live in is about 100K, and we have corner stores from back when they were legal when it was more like 10K.
anon84873628 2y ago
The infrastructure necessary to build suburbs is expensive: roads, water, sewer, electric, etc. It takes a very long time to pay off in taxes. Denser areas bring in more tax revenue with fewer miles of infrastructure. There are good Strong Towns articles about this. Rural areas have the same problem, but often the houses are on wells and septic tanks. The roads are simpler and cheaper and can get by with less maintenance.
- jjav 2y ago
  > The infrastructure necessary to build suburbs is expensive I'm not sure it's so simple. Yes, a mile of underground services (water, sewer, etc) in NYC serves orders of magnitude more people than a mile of underground services in some suburb. But, digging up a mile of underground services in NYC also costs billions of dollars, whereas a similar dig out in the suburbs can be done by a few people and a small digger in far less time and doesn't cost much because there's nothing near or above it.
orange_county 2y ago
You are going to have to cite "Many people love the suburbs" part. Most people live in the suburbs because that is the only cheap option available and that's because of zoning doesn't allow any other form of living. And when cities do decide to upzone, they tend to centralize high density towers in one part of the city. There are countless studies on why suburbs are just one big ponzi scheme. Strongtowns is an advocacy group that is trying to show more light into this issue. Most of the tax revenue comes from downtowns where there are more density and more economic activity. Meanwhile a lot of the infrastructure cost are sunked into the suburbs that contribute little to the total tax revenue. The situation is even worst in California due to prop 13.
- sien 2y ago
  https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/america... The numbers in 2021 of preference : 19% Urban, 46% Suburban, 35% rural.
- CapcomGo 2y ago
  Where else are you going to live where you can have a decent sized lot with space?
  - davidw 2y ago
    A city with a park nearby where your kids will actually meet other kids to play with? That's what life was like back when we lived in Italy a few years ago. It was pretty good in a lot of ways! When we moved here to Oregon, we landed in a rental with a big, beautiful back yard that didn't see much use. "Kids don't need a big yard to play, they need other kids" - and living in a denser area provides more kids. That's not to say no one should have a yard or anything, just that it's really not all that it's cracked up to be.
    - jjav 2y ago
      > A city with a park nearby where your kids will actually meet other kids to play with? Have you been to San Francisco? Addicts and homeless take over all parks. While I emphatize with their difficult situation, I don't want my child exposed to that. > "Kids don't need a big yard to play, they need other kids" - and living in a denser area provides more kids. Out here in suburbs,lots of kids (since most families with kids move to the suburbs) and many parks and none of the problems of a dense city. As a 20-something I want(ed) to live in a dense city for the parties & people & bars. As a parent of a child, I want to be as far as possible from a dense city.
sien 2y ago
The claim that suburbs are fiscally unsustainable is dubious. When asked for evidence it appears a video seems to be the source for the claim. With appropriate land taxes suburbs can be happily fiscally sustainable. Oddly, the claim is usually made by people who say that public transport is necessary and rarely comment on the fiscal sustainability of public transport. Other than Amtrak, which counts subsidies as revenue, not transit system in the US has a farebox recovery ratio of above 55% and most are around 20-30% . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio This was also before Covid and the dramatic rise of WFH. In the US and much of the developed world transit use is down by at least a quarter due to increased WFH. This is making US transit systems even more fiscally unsustainable.
- stetrain 2y ago
  I think the biggest issue is suburbs within commuter range of urban centers. The residents of the suburbs pay local taxes to the suburb for their local infrastructure. In the morning, a decent chunk of them get in their cars and drive into the city. The roads that need constant expansion, upgrades, and repair are the ones in the city or between the city and the suburb. The suburb residents vote against things that might cost them money but reduce the burden on roads not paid for by the suburbs. Yes, commuting has dropped, but it’s not gone. The major highways between my suburb and the nearby city are still constantly clogged and forever under construction.
  - lotsoweiners 2y ago
    Blame the companies, government agencies, and anyone else mandating RTO and other outmoded forms of work. Plenty of companies are fleeing downtown for office parks in the suburbs as their lease expires. We will see how sustainable some of these downtown businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, bars, stores) are once the money from suburban commuters dries up.
    - stetrain 2y ago
      In my experience "suburb" towns that have variety of density, including a dense town core, have more variety of healthy local stores and restaurants as well. It's hard to run a local restaurant when the houses are all evenly spread out and going out to dinner means a 30 minute car drive. Thus the proliferation of chain franchises in these areas.
eschaton 2y ago
When far suburbs and exurbs have to pay their own way they often wind up not being able to. Those that don’t have an equivalent to California’s Prop 13 cap on property tax increases will have to raise property taxes substantially to continue maintaining roads, sewers, providing fire and police services, public schools, and so on. Places that do have an equivalent to California’s Prop 13 cap on property tax increases will have to find some other way to fund these services (local income and sales taxes, transfer taxes, toll roads, collection and insurance fees, etc.). Either way, a lot of the people who live in far suburbs and exurbs—which are extremely energy-hungry compared to cities, which is what many costs ultimately reduce to—will wind up pricing out not just future but current residents. So yes, in fact, the “plan” is to pack people into high-rises—because that’s all they’ll be able to afford due to their relative energy efficiency.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
The suburbs are fiscally unsustainable in that many suburban areas bring in less tax revenue than the cost of maintaining them. Inner cities and commercial areas tend to support suburban neighborhoods. The cost per resident is much higher in low density areas like suburbs. Rural areas get around this by not providing services. Most rural districts don’t provide garbage, water, sewer, recreation, fire, transit or any of a bunch of other services that people expect in suburbs.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  Are you talking suburban areas that are part of the city “proper” or are you meaning suburbs that are their own city with their own taxes and services?

stetrain 2y ago

It's fiscally unsustainable if more people want to live there than there are housing units, and prices climb forever. Having denser housing in some places does not mean replacing all housing with high density. There are a lot of density options between single-family home suburbs and high-rise towers. Look up "missing middle" housing. The biggest offenders are actual urban areas that should be cities but try to act like suburbs. Let cities be dense, and it will actually take some pressure off of the suburbs. People who work in cities end up living in suburbs even if they don't want to, and then commute in every day and clog up the roads. Most US major cities are still well below major European cities on residential density. If you want rural to remain rural and suburbs to remain suburbs, then let town centers and metro cities fill in density for those who want to live there.

lotsoweiners 2y ago
> The biggest offenders are actual urban areas that should be cities but try to act like suburbs. Got an example?
- stetrain 2y ago
  https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1008/eu-and-us-cities-by-population-density-of-urban-area/ https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1008/eu-and-us-cities-b... US cities are generally fairly low density. That pushes more people to the suburbs, or low density suburb-like development at the edge of the city, driving up prices there and adding commuter traffic that the city pays to handle. If people want to live in the suburbs that's fine, but given housing prices in most cities I think there is greater demand than supply for residential there.
- stetrain 2y ago
  If you'd like a specific example: https://www.sparefoot.com/moving/city-guides/4385319-visualizing-atlantas-population-density/ https://www.sparefoot.com/moving/city-guides/4385319-visuali... Really any city that you can think of that's surrounded by a spaghetti tangle of highways full of commuters every morning and evening, which is most of them in the US.

davidw 2y ago

How about legalize the high-rises - and especially things like 3 and 4 story buildings with commercial underneath - and see what shakes out? It's difficult to say how much demand there is for that kind of thing if we've made it illegal in so many places. I don't doubt that many people have a preference for more suburban type places, but even those could be a lot more flexible and adaptable. A 4-plex here, a corner store there... that's not big city stuff. The city I live in is about 100K, and we have corner stores from back when they were legal when it was more like 10K.

anon84873628 2y ago

The infrastructure necessary to build suburbs is expensive: roads, water, sewer, electric, etc. It takes a very long time to pay off in taxes. Denser areas bring in more tax revenue with fewer miles of infrastructure. There are good Strong Towns articles about this. Rural areas have the same problem, but often the houses are on wells and septic tanks. The roads are simpler and cheaper and can get by with less maintenance.

jjav 2y ago
> The infrastructure necessary to build suburbs is expensive I'm not sure it's so simple. Yes, a mile of underground services (water, sewer, etc) in NYC serves orders of magnitude more people than a mile of underground services in some suburb. But, digging up a mile of underground services in NYC also costs billions of dollars, whereas a similar dig out in the suburbs can be done by a few people and a small digger in far less time and doesn't cost much because there's nothing near or above it.

orange_county 2y ago

You are going to have to cite "Many people love the suburbs" part. Most people live in the suburbs because that is the only cheap option available and that's because of zoning doesn't allow any other form of living. And when cities do decide to upzone, they tend to centralize high density towers in one part of the city. There are countless studies on why suburbs are just one big ponzi scheme. Strongtowns is an advocacy group that is trying to show more light into this issue. Most of the tax revenue comes from downtowns where there are more density and more economic activity. Meanwhile a lot of the infrastructure cost are sunked into the suburbs that contribute little to the total tax revenue. The situation is even worst in California due to prop 13.

sien 2y ago
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/america... The numbers in 2021 of preference : 19% Urban, 46% Suburban, 35% rural.
CapcomGo 2y ago
Where else are you going to live where you can have a decent sized lot with space?
- davidw 2y ago
  A city with a park nearby where your kids will actually meet other kids to play with? That's what life was like back when we lived in Italy a few years ago. It was pretty good in a lot of ways! When we moved here to Oregon, we landed in a rental with a big, beautiful back yard that didn't see much use. "Kids don't need a big yard to play, they need other kids" - and living in a denser area provides more kids. That's not to say no one should have a yard or anything, just that it's really not all that it's cracked up to be.
  - jjav 2y ago
    > A city with a park nearby where your kids will actually meet other kids to play with? Have you been to San Francisco? Addicts and homeless take over all parks. While I emphatize with their difficult situation, I don't want my child exposed to that. > "Kids don't need a big yard to play, they need other kids" - and living in a denser area provides more kids. Out here in suburbs,lots of kids (since most families with kids move to the suburbs) and many parks and none of the problems of a dense city. As a 20-something I want(ed) to live in a dense city for the parties & people & bars. As a parent of a child, I want to be as far as possible from a dense city.

sien 2y ago

The claim that suburbs are fiscally unsustainable is dubious. When asked for evidence it appears a video seems to be the source for the claim. With appropriate land taxes suburbs can be happily fiscally sustainable. Oddly, the claim is usually made by people who say that public transport is necessary and rarely comment on the fiscal sustainability of public transport. Other than Amtrak, which counts subsidies as revenue, not transit system in the US has a farebox recovery ratio of above 55% and most are around 20-30% . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio This was also before Covid and the dramatic rise of WFH. In the US and much of the developed world transit use is down by at least a quarter due to increased WFH. This is making US transit systems even more fiscally unsustainable.

stetrain 2y ago
I think the biggest issue is suburbs within commuter range of urban centers. The residents of the suburbs pay local taxes to the suburb for their local infrastructure. In the morning, a decent chunk of them get in their cars and drive into the city. The roads that need constant expansion, upgrades, and repair are the ones in the city or between the city and the suburb. The suburb residents vote against things that might cost them money but reduce the burden on roads not paid for by the suburbs. Yes, commuting has dropped, but it’s not gone. The major highways between my suburb and the nearby city are still constantly clogged and forever under construction.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  Blame the companies, government agencies, and anyone else mandating RTO and other outmoded forms of work. Plenty of companies are fleeing downtown for office parks in the suburbs as their lease expires. We will see how sustainable some of these downtown businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, bars, stores) are once the money from suburban commuters dries up.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    In my experience "suburb" towns that have variety of density, including a dense town core, have more variety of healthy local stores and restaurants as well. It's hard to run a local restaurant when the houses are all evenly spread out and going out to dinner means a 30 minute car drive. Thus the proliferation of chain franchises in these areas.

eschaton 2y ago

When far suburbs and exurbs have to pay their own way they often wind up not being able to. Those that don’t have an equivalent to California’s Prop 13 cap on property tax increases will have to raise property taxes substantially to continue maintaining roads, sewers, providing fire and police services, public schools, and so on. Places that do have an equivalent to California’s Prop 13 cap on property tax increases will have to find some other way to fund these services (local income and sales taxes, transfer taxes, toll roads, collection and insurance fees, etc.). Either way, a lot of the people who live in far suburbs and exurbs—which are extremely energy-hungry compared to cities, which is what many costs ultimately reduce to—will wind up pricing out not just future but current residents. So yes, in fact, the “plan” is to pack people into high-rises—because that’s all they’ll be able to afford due to their relative energy efficiency.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

The suburbs are fiscally unsustainable in that many suburban areas bring in less tax revenue than the cost of maintaining them. Inner cities and commercial areas tend to support suburban neighborhoods. The cost per resident is much higher in low density areas like suburbs. Rural areas get around this by not providing services. Most rural districts don’t provide garbage, water, sewer, recreation, fire, transit or any of a bunch of other services that people expect in suburbs.

lotsoweiners 2y ago
Are you talking suburban areas that are part of the city “proper” or are you meaning suburbs that are their own city with their own taxes and services?