[toomuchtodo]

Urban infrastructure costs are lower (less roads, small land area to cover with police, fire, etc), but the real estate costs quickly balloon (dense real estate in desirable locations is more expensive). Do I care if my single family home is $1k-2k/year more in tax costs than urban areas if my house is $100k-300k cheaper than a condo in the city (these numbers are pulled directly from the Chicago housing market)? I do not. I would even pay much more to not live in the city (my taxes could double, and I would still come out ahead living in the 'burbs over my lifetime), but that's an argument for another thread about the continuing willingness of the debt markets to provide cheap capital for municipalities who need to pay for sprawl. Misallocated capital is the bane of many a social ill.

Are you able to convince large populations of people they should pay much higher real estate costs for lower local taxes when they're still going to pay more (total monthly housing or lump sum payment) than in the suburbs? I do not believe that argument will fly.

[closeparen]

Condo prices are ludicrously detached from the fundamental efficiency because the supply of urban housing types is so severely restricted, on the basis of all the arguments you’ve just given.

If houses were banned on all but a few blocks, they’d be expensive too.

Urbanization is the arc of human civlization for thousands of years. The automobile era is a weird little blip.

[ericd]

Right, I think the real bill would be far more than double, but I haven't looked into this topic in depth, so I can't really say. While the party lasts, and the suburbs are heavily subsidized by cities/debt markets, sure, you'd have a hard time convincing the people being subsidized to change their ways. If that party ends, I think economic reality will do all the convincing. But markets and policy can stay irrational for a very long time, so who knows.