[adeimantus2001]

Suburban development, as it stands in America today, has enormous levels of externalities. The roads and sewers of suburban developments are subsidized by downtown areas which are more tax-dense. Suburban development requires cars which are always the least efficient way to get around vs. walking/transit, regardless of electrification. Suburban homes are large and freestanding both of which detract from building energy efficiency. Most suburban homes today are built with only a 50 year expected lifespan making them incredibly wasteful compared to construction in other parts of the world.

[twblalock]

People keep talking about the "subsidies" as if they apply to all suburbs. It seems to be an article of faith. It really needs some evidence (preferably from an unbiased source).

[tshaddox]

There are probably exceptions, of course, but surely the basics are not controversial, e.g. that public infrastructure spending per capita tends to be much higher in suburbs than in urban areas, carbon emissions per capita are much higher in suburbs, etc. Not to mention that political representation in the United States favors lower density areas.

[kortilla]

This is false. The tax districts are independent in the suburbs in many locations. Sewers and water are local city taxes are paid for out of the suburb property taxes. The only “city tax” subsidizing suburbs would be state taxes and that’s if and only if more people lived downtown than in the suburbs, which is not true in California.