[ska]

> Notwithstanding that the middle-class overwhelmingly prefers living in the suburbs. "quiet", "safe", etc.

Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices.

However, there is no reason to assume that if those policies change, peoples impressions and preferences won't change too. Quite the opposite, actually - that's just how incentives (and the related PR) work.

[slothtrop]

> Right, but they currently believe those things for reasons that are inexorably connected to those same policy choices.

Only in the chicken-and-egg sense that policy choices make suburbia prioritized, but I don't think it's enough to say that special policies are what wholly render suburbia quiet and safe (to the extent that if you were to enact the policy change you want, suburbia will still be regarded as such).

[ska]

Quiet I think is somewhat intrinsic, although the desirability of that is socially constructed, and changes over time. I also think people care about "quiet house" (which is to some degree a choice during construction) more than "quiet neighbourhood". The latter, after all, can be construed negatively or positively.

"Safety" perception though seems to largely be a social construction. By this I mean it seems pretty clear (US context) that a) most people have opinions, often strong ones, about safety that b) don't seem much related to any data or real science [1] and c) are quite often affected by softer things like political messaging and PR.

If I'm right about the above, there would be no reason to assume it would not change also. Of course it also implies that change could not be driven by reality either :)

[1] real science in this area seems inherently difficult, and available data of poor quality