I believe housing choice is a good thing. The problem is that suburbia almost always takes away housing choice for everyone else.
Suburbia is not cost viable.
Notice how suburbs are almost always built around cities and almost never on their own. There is a reason for this; they are heavily subsidized by the city and its infrastructure - eventually killing off the city due to extreme maintenance costs and uncooperative tax base (NIMBYs). This is a parasitic relationship, fullstop.
Suburbia is not recyclable.
It is extremely difficult to reuse suburban infrastructure for non-suburban purposes. This effectively eliminates scarce land until a patron spends 10x removing what it costs to install (not happening). This is why suburbs are often just abandoned instead of repurposed (see any rust-belt suburb).
Space should not come at the cost of the future.
To navigate suburbia (only viable by car) is to put massive strain on the human body and environment. We were built to walk. If you do not, you will become fat and die (see America). Cars pollute the air to no end, and “third places” can never truly be established - killing communities.
Wanting space is fine, but people should find a way to do it sustainably without harming themselves and everyone around them.
I don’t really follow you regarding cost viability.
I live in a small city of about 70,000. We don’t really have a dense CBH. There are small blocks of apartments here or there but not really in a business district.
99% of the population here lives in detached houses in a suburban setting.
It seems kind of nonsensical to me to suggest that suburbs kill off cities due to extreme maintenance costs.
I know people who work in the city’s finance department. The taxes people in suburbia pay to the municipality pay for the maintenance and services they receive. If there were a deficit from suburban parasites the city would’ve become insolvent long ago.
Small town suburbia is viable, but most suburbs (at least that I know of) are not small town - they are urban sprawl. Most of the cost is from strained infrastructure, usually due to overextending a city, which is likely not present in your town. I still would not recommend small town suburbia due to points 2 and 3, but it works.
I will note that most US suburbs are insolvent; I cannot speak for Australia. This is part of the reason why a lot of cities have genuinely abysmal infrastructure, because they cannot afford upkeep. Also keep in mind that due to point 2, property costs in the city rise because expansion becomes way more expensive because you have to tear apart suburbia.
I believe housing choice is a good thing. The problem is that suburbia almost always takes away housing choice for everyone else.
Notice how suburbs are almost always built around cities and almost never on their own. There is a reason for this; they are heavily subsidized by the city and its infrastructure - eventually killing off the city due to extreme maintenance costs and uncooperative tax base (NIMBYs). This is a parasitic relationship, fullstop.
It is extremely difficult to reuse suburban infrastructure for non-suburban purposes. This effectively eliminates scarce land until a patron spends 10x removing what it costs to install (not happening). This is why suburbs are often just abandoned instead of repurposed (see any rust-belt suburb).
To navigate suburbia (only viable by car) is to put massive strain on the human body and environment. We were built to walk. If you do not, you will become fat and die (see America). Cars pollute the air to no end, and “third places” can never truly be established - killing communities.
Wanting space is fine, but people should find a way to do it sustainably without harming themselves and everyone around them.
I don’t really follow you regarding cost viability.
I live in a small city of about 70,000. We don’t really have a dense CBH. There are small blocks of apartments here or there but not really in a business district.
99% of the population here lives in detached houses in a suburban setting.
It seems kind of nonsensical to me to suggest that suburbs kill off cities due to extreme maintenance costs.
I know people who work in the city’s finance department. The taxes people in suburbia pay to the municipality pay for the maintenance and services they receive. If there were a deficit from suburban parasites the city would’ve become insolvent long ago.
Small town suburbia is viable, but most suburbs (at least that I know of) are not small town - they are urban sprawl. Most of the cost is from strained infrastructure, usually due to overextending a city, which is likely not present in your town. I still would not recommend small town suburbia due to points 2 and 3, but it works.
I will note that most US suburbs are insolvent; I cannot speak for Australia. This is part of the reason why a lot of cities have genuinely abysmal infrastructure, because they cannot afford upkeep. Also keep in mind that due to point 2, property costs in the city rise because expansion becomes way more expensive because you have to tear apart suburbia.