Suburbs Subsidized by Cities

It's because suburbs are subsidized in the current system. Roads, infrastructure, and other upkeep costs are paid by the entire city but since the denser regions are more productive/profitable, they end up paying for the services that suburban residents are using. If suburban residents had to pay for the real cost of their housing, then I think it would be a lot less appealing. Building suburbs is terrible city planning and it's sad that cities are continuing to endorse them.

well, people in suburbia get their infrastructure subsidized by everyone and in addition are destroying the planet, people in cities are paying artificially super-high rent to the landowning class. it seems like we could solve both these problems at the same time and change the value proposition here.

Actually the density of taxpayers in suburbs may not be enough over time to maintain their infrastructure like roads and sewers.Residents in both places pay for their housing units but share the costs for roads, sewers, etc. Denser cities have an advantage in this regard.

No, you don’t. plain and simple. Tons of people living together share the costs. the few in the suburbs need to pay for their own infra. They’re not now. The cities are subsidizing the suburbs. that’s not fair.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

You shouldn't feel bad but it's more of a matter that your lifestyle is likely heavily subsidized because your town doesn't have the tax base (nor will they raise your taxes) to support the infrastructure that's required to make suburbs function.If you were paying the true costs of living in the suburbs this wouldn't be an issue, but there's a high likelihood you don't.Cities will always be necessary because they are one of the most efficient ways (cheape

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.

The tax base in the suburbs needs to increase to the point that it can actually support the massive amount of infrastructure needed to support their desired lifestyle. Much like rural areas, the suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban residents and businesses. If low density housing had to realize all of their actual costs, it would probably be a lot less desirable.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI</

Why should cities be expected subsidize rural and suburban living? Those higher infrastructure costs are rural and suburban problems, no need for states to transfer tax revenue simply because cities make more money for less infrastructure costs.

It means that when you look at government revenue vs expenditure per square mile, urban dwellers are massively subsidizing surburbanites. It's mainly because maintainence of roads, parking, and utilities for a spread-out surburbia is vastly less efficient than it is for a tightly packed city.

Citylab, strongtowns etc. Often discuss the tyranny of the suburbs and how city residents subsidize their infrastructure.