>>1556220Depends on how it is setup. It can be very profitable or a huge drain.
https://youtu.be/ETR9qrVS17gBut putting financially viability aside Suburbs are an ineffective method of housing regardless. The original idea was to get the best of "city life" and the best of "country life", however they do neither and only got off the ground thanks to support by super rich people wasting their money to make it work. They were started as super rich communities and were echo cambers leading to more radical ideas as people only lived with people of the same background and beliefs which in the long run helps create political divide and political polarization. They take up abnormally large amounts of land, but have no significant crop yield like farms. And their spacing makes travel impractical, so much that the early suburbs had private rail or bus lines into the city as residence thought diving daily in every growing traffic would be too much to bare, even for their chauffeur. That was the kind of money they had at the start and that money over came all kind of problems back then. Over time building/development companies learned they could make knockoffs of those super rich suburbs and sell them for big money as people fantasized having the life style of the super rich. The result was an even more poorly designed living setup without the support of huge amounts of money to compensate for those inefficiencies.
So now we all live in bad knockoffs trying to emulating the the lifestyle of the super elite of the 1920s because of marketed social pressure nobody even thinks about at huge costs to everyone.
