Are you perhaps being a tad hyperbolic? Is it fair to say that the suburb layout is generally considered ideal to live in? Supply issues aside, I would argue that most people would move to a suburb rather than a dense city all other things equal.
Is there a compromise that you’d be okay with? Maybe sprinkle in some high-density apartments around to supplement the single-family housing? Maybe wipe away rental properties so that you don’t have effectively vacant units for portions of the year?
No need for inferred preference, actual preferences of where Americans would prefer to live are 19% urban, 46% suburban, and 35% rural [1]. 71% of urban residents who would like to move want to move to a suburban or rural area, in contrast, 23% and 20% of suburban and rural residents who would like to move respectively want to move to an urban area [2]. Contrary to what your blog post implies, most people have some idea of what each type of living condition is like, and they are making an educated choice.
There are cheap high-density areas and expensive low-density areas. According to your and that blogpost's logic, Silicon Valley's high housing prices in single-family neighborhoods and the fact that people want to move there are proof that people ACTUALLY want a suburban lifestyle, not an urban one.
Looking at where people live and where they want to live is a better source of their actual preferences than looking at housing prices in a handful of expensive neighborhoods and guessing what the average person wants.
Sure, as long as we also get rid of all urban growth boundaries. Be careful what you wish for, a free market city won't look like what you think it will.
They already do in many places. Toll roads exist, and the gas tax pays for almost all of the highways anyways. Transit is subsidized an order of magnitude more. A world with no subsidies looks more like suburban sprawl than a dense transit focused city.
Not even a little bit. Go read about exclusionary zoning in general or see your sibling comment's link for some reading on Vancouver specifically.
> Is it fair to say that the suburb layout is generally considered ideal to live in?
Is it considered ideal? Maybe. Is it actually ideal? No.
Aside from the huge negative impacts on pricing and equality that we've already discussed there's the environmental impact, isolation, car dependence, etc, etc.
> I would argue that most people would move to a suburb rather than a dense city all other things equal.
This is unfortunately true for Americans and I'd guess Canadians as well. I think this is due to some combination of:
- The absurd "American dream" vision that's been pushed by car manufacturers and other companies for many decades.
- Most American cities aren't actually very good, so most Americans have never experienced the alternative.
- Fox News and other conservative media pushing the narrative that cities are infested with criminals, terrorists, etc.
> Maybe sprinkle in some high-density apartments around to supplement the single-family housing?
Great. This is what would happen if there wasn't zoning.
> > Is it fair to say that the suburb layout is generally considered ideal to live in?
> Is it considered ideal? Maybe. Is it actually ideal? No.
Ideal in what? Ideal has to be measured by some metric, so which one or which ones?
What makes these discussions interminable is that some of the metrics are objective but some are subjective so there can't be any one ideal answer.
An objective measure is housing units per square km. Easy to measure, it's just math. Obviously high-rise apartment buildings maximize that metric. So is that the only metric that should ever be considered? Or the most important one?
Then there are also the subjective metrics of niceness. While many people might be happy living in those high-rises, many people won't do it.
Should the density maximizers be the only people who get a vote in these matters? If so, why is that? Why are they more special citizens than others? That sure doesn't sound fair.
Or should they get no vote? Well that's not fair either.
So clearly there can't be one ideal answer, it's compromises all the way.
Many people will have legitimate preferences that differ from yours, that in no way makes them "absurd".
> Many people will have legitimate preferences that differ from yours
If your preference means that teachers can't afford homes within city limits, emissions won't improve, infrastructure can't be sustained [1], cars are the only viable transportation, etc, etc, then your opinion should really be discarded by decision makers.
A suburb can be significantly denser than another, even just allowing duplexes or front/back lots can double or more the carrying capacity of a suburb.
Is there a compromise that you’d be okay with? Maybe sprinkle in some high-density apartments around to supplement the single-family housing? Maybe wipe away rental properties so that you don’t have effectively vacant units for portions of the year?