[covidthrow]

When you stop subsidizing suburbs, will you also stop subsidizing the flyover states? How about the impoverished? Medicare for unhealthy people? Education? Fire departments?

Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?

[GeneralMayhem]

You might think this is a gotcha, but in reality this is a question with a very easy answer: we should subsidize things with positive externalities, and not things with negative externalities. Suburbs have negative externalities (pollution, infrastructure cost, social isolation). Caring for the poor and sick, educating the young, and putting out fires all have positive externalities.

[covidthrow]

I don't think this is a "gotcha". I asked for a threshold, accepting that there are varying costs and benefits.

I think that your justification is lacking, however. As though there are no positive externalities for suburban living (there are), or even negative externalities for the other items (there are).

I'm not sure I trust your assessment when you identify only negative externalities to suburban living, frankly.

[throw0101a]

> Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?

When the thing being subsidized has no benefit to society.

'Subsidizing' the impoverished is helping another human being, and is always worthwhile. Healthcare for all is enlightened self-interest because I do not know what future illnesses I may have, and what they may cost, so I'd rather have everyone subsidized than risk myself not having access to future treatments.

Education and the public fire departments help build better societies.

But what benefit do car-based suburbs give to society as a whole? Can you least three benefits that we can discuss?

[covidthrow]

Sure:

- suburban areas largely "subsidize" the cost of education, which far exceeds the cost of roads and utility infrastructure subsidized by the cities. The quality of schools in suburban areas is also largely higher than in cities.

- suburban areas have anywhere from 1/7 - 1/3 the crime rates of cities—even accounting for socioeconomic factors—which reduces personal and social harm. There is also vastly faster emergency response in suburban areas which save lives and stop culprits.

- mood disorders (anxiety, depression, etc) are about 40% more common in city dwellers then suburbanites, and that's strongly linked to the differing environments.

If the cost and quality of education, reduction of crime, and mental health aren't benefits to society as a whole, I don't know what is.

Please understand, I do not suggest that city living is "bad". I do, however, suggest that diversity of living environments is good, for the individual and for society as a whole.

[throw0101a]

The first two points probably have less to do with the the design of suburbs, but can probably be better attributed to income/wealth:

* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-ur...

I live in Toronto, Canada, and we probably have as much variation with-in the city as between the suburban and urban areas given that different neighbourhoods with-in the city have different average incomes.

Access to green spaces does help help in many ways, but that may be countered by the lack of activity in car-centric areas:

* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/the-publi...

Further, lower density building necessities eating up more land for the same population than higher density. You're paving over the very 'green' land that is providing benefits in the first place.

And 'urban living' also exists on a spectrum: it is not necessary to design things as scrunched together as (say) Manhattan. Brooklyn and Queen's (for example) can support walkable neighbourhoods with useful public transit (and cycling), while having SFH, garages/lanes, backyards, etc.

I'm less against 'real' rural living than suburban design. The post-WW2 suburbs just seem to be the worst of both worlds.

[flukus]

> Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?

People that have a higher standard of living than me seems to be a reasonable cutoff, why should I live in a small apartment but pay for your gluttonous lifestyle in a McMansion?

I'm all for a bit of wealth redistribution, but from poor to rich is the wrong direction.

[echelon]

> McMansion

This is a mock term from detractors.

Many large homes cost less than a condo. A mortgage on a home you own is sometimes less than rent in the city. For something you'll never own.

I don't get what your gripe is. You can even build a large home with your own hands if you have the skill and time. It's not like it's some unnatural thing that is going to lead to the collapse of civilization.

> People that have a higher standard of living than me seems to be a reasonable cutoff

> why should I live in a small apartment but pay for your gluttonous lifestyle in a McMansion

This strikes me as jealousy. I'm glad you're not making decisions for the rest of us.

This planet is a stochastic mix of people trying lots of different things. Most of it is harmless. Live and let be. You're not going to solve the world's problems by pointing fingers. Humanity isn't going anywhere.