[esalman]

High-income, low-density suburban areas are actually economically sustained and subsidized by low-income, high-density downtown areas. This is why residents of such areas should not be the sole voice of democracy here.

Source: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=KWdMMY0Tnf46H6Oy

[cbron]

Interesting video, but it's all from the pov of the city's tax revenue and nothing else. Taking the first example, if they don't build the new food complex and keep the old one, less people will want to live in that city, and eventually the tax revenue will go down. Plenty of ghost towns around me that prove that point, you have to stay modern or you go under. As far as the suburb part, if those high income areas spend all their money downtown, then tax revenue downtown goes up but the source of money is still the suburbs. You have two sources of tax revenue in downtown (business + residents), but only one in the suburbs. So naturally tax revenue is lower in suburbs, but without them the downtown businesses wouldn't survive at all. It's a relationship, and it's odd they don't address this point. Also in the southwest there are plenty of suburb-only cities that grow rapidly without a downtown district playing major part.