Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
1950s style suburbia is unsustainable yet the US continues to build lots of it. There simply isn't a big enough tax base in suburbia to maintain and repair all those roads, sewers, electrical, etc. Up till now it's relied on massive subsidies from government.
We've done the same thing in Canada but did a 180 degree pivot about 20-25 years ago. Our metros are all intensifying rapidly so we've dodged a bullet, so to speak. The problem in the US is that massive intensification requires strong population growth. With population growth collapsing they can't intensify their cities to the point where there will be enough tax payers per square km to pay for it all.
Brazilian metros have a built in advantage over their US counterparts as they never sprawled out like that in the first place.
|
US suburbia is perfectly sustainable. If it weren't, you'd think it wouldn't last for 60+ years and still be going strong. You say the tax base is not large enough, but that it gets "subsidies" from the government. Where does the government get its money, other than from the tax base? OK if you want to get cute you can say money printing, but anyway if something continued for as long as the American suburbs have continued, it is "sustainable".
If you pressed a lot of Americans, and they thought about it a bit, I think many people would say that national wealth is exactly for things like the suburbs. It's not necessary, but neither are disposal fast fashion or foreign vacations or restaurant meals. We have this wealth and we have the world's largest economy precisely so we can spend it as we wish, including on large ass suburban homes 25 miles from our workplaces and 3 miles from the nearest shop.