Suburbia is Subsidized?

I was triggered on Twitter. (oops X). I saw a post that vilified suburban sprawl as ‘we all subsidize’ it. It’s been a while since I’ve heard that rally cry against the natural course of a metro area to seek out inexpensive growth. The claim, which is never followed up with any data or research, implies that the public costs to the outward growth of a city drains public resources.

But all growth or redevelopment is subsidized. Developers receive tax benefits and incentives for work in urban areas as well as suburban areas. Roads are built and maintained with funds at the local level, the county level, the state level and even the Feds drop a few bucks for the interstate system. Since employers are located all across a metro area, there is no guarantee that a city dweller commutes less than suburban dwellers, they just travel in a different direction.

The old dichotomy of the urban versus the suburban is so passe. First tier suburbs are now appraoching 80 years old, which is about how old the core city was in the 60’s when this whole vilify the middle class folks who simply wanted a nice little 1800 sqft one-and-a-half-story on a .14acre with a sidewalk lot started.

Let’s put to rest the image of a cool (yet always suffering) urban core that needs to be cherished, protected and preserved by fighting courageously against the nasty exclusionary suburbs. Instead, envision a dynamic, interesting and ever-changing melange of housing choices that serve as the dwellings for the several million people who want to cluster in a large metro area.