| 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. |
* 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.