[UtopiaPunk]

North American style suburbs are artificially subsidized by cities and not sustainable for society. A series of policy decisions at all levels of government have artificially made the suburban lifestyle cheaper than it otherwise would be, but sooner or later, something has gotta give.

This is a good starting point on the subject, with many sources for more in-depth reading if one chooses: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/24/busting-4-comm...

[mensetmanusman]

Find a city that has above replacement levels of fertility, then define whether population sustainability is suitable for society. Thinking deeply about this may change opinions.

[bluGill]

Strongtowns is cooking the math. Suburbs have existed for more than 100 years, and most do not fall for issues they claim.

[medvezhenok]

Suburbs 100 years ago did not have roads to maintain, communal sewers, and other amenities that we expect today. Suburbs 100 years ago were more like the dachas/summer houses people have in Russia - no running water, no electricity, outhouse instead of a plumbed bathroom, no fire/medical services... etc.

Sure, under that model they are definitely sustainable.

[bluGill]

Over the last 100 years those suburbs have added all of your list, plus parks (which were not common 100 years ago), internet, cable tv, phone.

Which just goes road prove they are sustaining themselves.

[medvezhenok]

That doesn't prove anything.

I could buy many things for myself by putting them on my credit card - that doesn't make my spending habits sustainable.

The whole point of strong towns is that the Government financed the projects but not the maintenance, and that the suburbs can't afford the maintenance bills (at least some of them) under the current tax regime.