4 ms·

Unfortunately, much of the US, and elsewhere, has been taken in by decades of successful American propaganda promoting and romanticizing the suburb after the Wa

Unfortunately, much of the US, and elsewhere, has been taken in by decades of successful American propaganda promoting and romanticizing the suburb after the War. The taste for the suburb, like the taste for cars, is very entrenched in many people's minds. In our vapid consumerist culture, they have become elevated to virtual rites of passage: buying a car and buying a suburban house are marks of manhood and adulthood. Furthermore, there's a vicious cycle that keeps cities at a disadvantage, to a large part driven by the parasitic nature of suburbs themselves. Suburbs are financially completely unsustainable. Tax revenue doesn't come close to paying for the maintenance of suburban roads, infrastructure, and utilities. They survive by draining state and federal money, which itself is disproportionately drawn from urban centers where economic activity is highest. This takes money away from cities that should be reinvested back into cities. One thing we should do is tax municipal bonds. There are other ways in which suburbs are actively and artificially propped up, of course. The point is that the suburbs has always been a Frankenstein on life support that's been bleeding cities. So I think one way to address the suburb is to attack the parasitic dimension. By forcing suburbs to pay their own way, no one can be accused of robbing suburbs; it would incriminate the suburbs and call out their hypocrisy. It would also strike at the heart of the "adulthood" and "manhood" artificially bound up with owning a house in the suburbs. How adult and how masculine is it to mooch off of others to maintain the suburban lifestyle? This would then fortify the urbs and also push back on the stupidity of the housing market in cities, the poor land use in many of them, as well as bad public transportation.

eudamoniac 7mo ago
Your solution to "the stupidity of the housing markets in cities" is to increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? Sorry, no, I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  > increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? You're not thinking systematically. Increased demand isn't the only variable. Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. Diffusing pressure allows gov'ts to kick the can down the road, which is what led to the suburban debacle. > I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Where did I say you must live in a high rise? Urban development isn't limited to high rises. Small towns and cities exist, yes? It's a question of density and particular patterns of urban planning that enable a healthy social environment. Traditional urban planning did a far better job of that than the suburb. And btw, what's the problem having a large family in a high rise? Living in a high rise actually reduces the maintenance costs (both in terms of time and money). Owning a suburban house comes with more overhead. In well-designed cities, there is ample green space. In a landscape dotted with cities, you are also within reach of more expansive natural landscapes that haven't been spoiled, scarred, and deformed by sprawling suburbs. > Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good. I assure you: the suburb is neither good for families nor productive. They are extraordinarily wasteful. Children are shackled and isolated at home, because getting anywhere requires driving. Parents are then burdened with the task of driving their children everywhere or making arrangements. You can't do or buy anything without driving. People waste countless hours commuting. And as I already wrote, it is very expensive to maintain suburban utilities. It takes a lot more energy to keep the suburban machine running. Suburbs are basically on gov't welfare funded by city tax payers. This naturally comes off as entitled: entitled not to live in a high rise (which, as I said, is not necessarily entailed by the word "city", so rather moot) and entitled to subsidies that drain resources from cities. Why don't suburbs pay for the luxury of their own existence? Funding them is not a matter of the common good, nor is it charity. It's exploitation of others to satisfy a private fetish and fantasy, one that incidentally harms the common good. I encourage you to visit Strong Towns[0]. There's plenty of material there that targets a popular audience that covers this subject. You might find these ideas less threatening than the urban boogeyman of your mind. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
  - eudamoniac 7mo ago
    > Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. The government already isn't effectively responding to increased demand and need, so I really disagree that making the problem worse will overall help anything. That is basically accelerationism. The rest of your post I disagree with from value-based first principles, e.g. "children are shackled and isolated" and "you can't do...anything without driving", as though the only things for children to do in the world are shop and consume in an urban center, so there is no point discussing it.

eudamoniac 7mo ago

Your solution to "the stupidity of the housing markets in cities" is to increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? Sorry, no, I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
> increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? You're not thinking systematically. Increased demand isn't the only variable. Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. Diffusing pressure allows gov'ts to kick the can down the road, which is what led to the suburban debacle. > I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Where did I say you must live in a high rise? Urban development isn't limited to high rises. Small towns and cities exist, yes? It's a question of density and particular patterns of urban planning that enable a healthy social environment. Traditional urban planning did a far better job of that than the suburb. And btw, what's the problem having a large family in a high rise? Living in a high rise actually reduces the maintenance costs (both in terms of time and money). Owning a suburban house comes with more overhead. In well-designed cities, there is ample green space. In a landscape dotted with cities, you are also within reach of more expansive natural landscapes that haven't been spoiled, scarred, and deformed by sprawling suburbs. > Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good. I assure you: the suburb is neither good for families nor productive. They are extraordinarily wasteful. Children are shackled and isolated at home, because getting anywhere requires driving. Parents are then burdened with the task of driving their children everywhere or making arrangements. You can't do or buy anything without driving. People waste countless hours commuting. And as I already wrote, it is very expensive to maintain suburban utilities. It takes a lot more energy to keep the suburban machine running. Suburbs are basically on gov't welfare funded by city tax payers. This naturally comes off as entitled: entitled not to live in a high rise (which, as I said, is not necessarily entailed by the word "city", so rather moot) and entitled to subsidies that drain resources from cities. Why don't suburbs pay for the luxury of their own existence? Funding them is not a matter of the common good, nor is it charity. It's exploitation of others to satisfy a private fetish and fantasy, one that incidentally harms the common good. I encourage you to visit Strong Towns[0]. There's plenty of material there that targets a popular audience that covers this subject. You might find these ideas less threatening than the urban boogeyman of your mind. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
- eudamoniac 7mo ago
  > Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. The government already isn't effectively responding to increased demand and need, so I really disagree that making the problem worse will overall help anything. That is basically accelerationism. The rest of your post I disagree with from value-based first principles, e.g. "children are shackled and isolated" and "you can't do...anything without driving", as though the only things for children to do in the world are shop and consume in an urban center, so there is no point discussing it.