>>1884126>The cost to build and maintain utilities in cities is exponentially more expensive than in the suburbs or the sticksThere are actually people that haven't yet grasped the concept of "per capita".
>>1884141>The US wouldn't continue suburbanization if it was a net money loser.>>1884155>We'd be doing something completely different en masse if they weren't a net gain overall."It is happening therefore it must be right." Appeal to authority, a level of thinking befitting of a meek woman.
There are entire institutions proving over and over again that low density development is mostly a net loss. They literally sell this information to save towns from bankruptcy. One of the many reasons this idea isn't gaining wide adoption is because of inert policy and because those who determine how the city is developed just so happen to live in neighborhoods where this idea would increase their tax twofold and would rather just continue this veiled welfare program for the rich.
You are naive beyond belief if you think politics, money and power have nothing to do with this.
