The financial unsustainability of traditional, car-centric American suburbs, consisting mainly of single-family units, is a critical aspect of the problem of urban sprawl. The design of these suburbs necessitates constant expansion into undeveloped land. This is because the initial infrastructure costs, such as roads, utilities, and public services, are often subsidized by development fees and future property taxes from new construction. However, as these communities age, the costs of maintaining and replacing this infrastructure can significantly exceed the revenue from property taxes, creating a financial shortfall. This is often referred to as a “growth Ponzi scheme” – new development brings in a temporary influx of revenue, which is used to pay for the cost of existing liabilities, but in the process, incurs even more long-term liabilities.
Moreover, the dispersed, low-density nature of these suburbs compounds the issue, leading to inefficient public service delivery and increased per capita costs. The reliance on private vehicles, due to large distances between residences, workplaces, and essential amenities, also places a heavy financial burden on families, particularly those in lower income brackets. Affordable housing options are limited, contributing to socio-economic segregation. Furthermore, the conversion of natural and agricultural land into residential and commercial areas can lead to losses in ecosystem services, the costs of which are often not accounted for. Thus, from both a municipal and a resident perspective, traditional American suburbs present a financially unsustainable model for urban development.
The suburb model is an easy way to give people more land, but it is highly, highly inefficient.
I’ll have to watch this later. At first I thought it was from the Not Just Bikes channel, which has a similar message.
It’s not really a ponzi scheme… it’s a desire for affluence and social exclusion from people who are different than you.
People love conformity, hence why every new development is in a HOA.
Its kind of both, the growth pattern is not sustainable in any metric. Focusing only on the now without caring for the future upkeep is very shortsighted development
This is all true, but doesn’t offer much of a solution or any alternatives. If I think about the concept of essentially living in a megabuilding from cyberpunk, I wouldn’t trust my fellow man to be clean enough to keep it from looking like the mega buildings from cyberpunk. Plus, cramming people into close quarters accelerates the transmission of disease, which would be problematic given how unclean I would expect such a place to be. It’s not that I disagree with these statements, urban sprawl is a problem.
The concept you’re looking for is called the ‘missing middle’. People assume the only two options are single family home suburbs or inner city mega apartments.
What’s missing are small mixed areas (which are illegal to build in most of the US) that have single family homes, duplexes, small apartment buildings, all mixed in with commercial spaces like grocery stores and restaurants.
It isn’t “illegal.” I work in development as a civil engineer and there is a ton of mixed use development. The 5 over 1 building, with retail in the lower level and several floors of apartments are huge right now.
But it doesn’t solve a lot of issues. We still need cars to get to work and get services we can’t get locally. Consumer preferences drive a lot of it as well. While some people prefer living car free, many do not. Many prefer single family homes with yards
Sponsored by the wealthy city property landowners of America that are angry as hell that people wised up back in the 70s and got the hell out of the crowded, crime-filled urban blight of the cities that is still there. They tried to “fix” it by roping off certain areas and gentrifying them, but the problem remains.
This whole thread has reddit fuckcars stink to it, which is promoted by the exact same wealthy landowners trying to get people back into the damn cities. No, thank you. Private vehicles is FREEDOM and the ability to actually get to the place you need to go without drama. It’s also ableist to advocate for public transportation because only cars will put you right at the place you need to get to, with the ability to park close with given parking stickers. Good luck walking (or biking) several blocks if you have mobility issues.
And it’s only the wealthy landowners who need constant expansion into undeveloped land; frustrated by people not falling for the “come to the cities” bait, they start buying up and using undeveloped rural land when it’s not necessary, as tons of housing, cheap apartments, and retail locations sit unused and decaying because they don’t own them or they’re perceived as “failed”.
That’s the scam that you should really know. Be aware, there is an enormous push to promote this “move back to the city, fuck cars!” trash pushed by wealthy people; I have fought this for years and they will not stop trying to silence the truth, regardless of how many times I argue against every single flawed point they have.
Yeah, because remote suburbs are just perfect for disabled people with mobility issues. 👍
There’s no way you are not a troll lmao
(((Inner city crime))) (((wealthy cosmopolitan elites)))
Usually, the multiple parenthesis are used to dog whistle “Jews”, but this guy was dog whistling “black people”.
I’m not sure if there’s a way to sarcastic indicate that form of stupidity…
Anyway, for those who don’t know, “white flight” to the suburbs started almost exactly the same time that segregation was ended. What a coincidence. Particularly the desegregation of schools.
Speaking of the desegregation of schools, the forced desegregation of certain white only universities was the start of the religious right in politics, not Roe v Wade, which was decided some 7 or so years earlier.
Much emotion, low education
So much bullshit I don’t even know where to begin.
I suggest that anyone interested in this topic watches this playlist which goes into the economics (and much more) about why current American planning doesn’t work and is destroying the US:
https://youtu.be/y_SXXTBypIg?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
I’m not going to watch a series of videos that probably spouts the same capitalist billionaire ideal that got us into this. I’m sorry, but if you don’t understand how jamming people into a city and taking away their cars (ABLEISM) is a bad idea, you’re just a tool for the capitalist billionaires that are making our lives a living hell every single day.
I’ll never understand how anyone could say cities are ableist in the slightest. Less cars means you’re more free to just go places, walking or otherwise, so it’s safer for people with vision or hearing disabilities. More public transit means it’s easier for everyone else to get places. If you can’t use your legs, you can’t drive anyway… Now you don’t have to. Plus public transit costs a lot less to the user to do because you don’t need to pay for a whole car and so on which is great for people with limited money options due to having a disability.
It’s really dumb to say public transit and walkable cities is capitalist stink given that there’s a really long recorded history of capitalist stinks trying to ban cities from being walkable… And it working… It’s a big reason American cities suck so bad now.
But everyone can’t drive. I just don’t see how cities=capitalism? What makes a suburb more socialist than a city?
The videos look at the facts and sources their claims, like actual budgets and where the money is coming from is shown.
If you aren’t willing to look at the facts then maybe you shouldn’t be talking about the subject?Cities where stuff is close together and there’s public transport is obviously better for disabled people than being stuck far away from everything and having to drive(which many people can’t) to do anything?
