You know something I really like? Lobster. You know what would be great for me? If the government made a program to subsidize lobster farming and distribution, so that lobster cost $3/meal instead of $20. If it cost that I would probably have Lobster 5 times a week!
But, it doesn't, so... I don't eat that much Lobster. I still love it though, and there's nothing wrong with that! Nobody should force me to stop eating Lobster.
Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?
People that have a higher standard of living than me seems to be a reasonable cutoff, why should I live in a small apartment but pay for your gluttonous lifestyle in a McMansion?
I'm all for a bit of wealth redistribution, but from poor to rich is the wrong direction.
This is a mock term from detractors.
Many large homes cost less than a condo. A mortgage on a home you own is sometimes less than rent in the city. For something you'll never own.
I don't get what your gripe is. You can even build a large home with your own hands if you have the skill and time. It's not like it's some unnatural thing that is going to lead to the collapse of civilization.
> People that have a higher standard of living than me seems to be a reasonable cutoff
> why should I live in a small apartment but pay for your gluttonous lifestyle in a McMansion
This strikes me as jealousy. I'm glad you're not making decisions for the rest of us.
This planet is a stochastic mix of people trying lots of different things. Most of it is harmless. Live and let be. You're not going to solve the world's problems by pointing fingers. Humanity isn't going anywhere.
I think that your justification is lacking, however. As though there are no positive externalities for suburban living (there are), or even negative externalities for the other items (there are).
I'm not sure I trust your assessment when you identify only negative externalities to suburban living, frankly.
When the thing being subsidized has no benefit to society.
'Subsidizing' the impoverished is helping another human being, and is always worthwhile. Healthcare for all is enlightened self-interest because I do not know what future illnesses I may have, and what they may cost, so I'd rather have everyone subsidized than risk myself not having access to future treatments.
Education and the public fire departments help build better societies.
But what benefit do car-based suburbs give to society as a whole? Can you least three benefits that we can discuss?
- suburban areas largely "subsidize" the cost of education, which far exceeds the cost of roads and utility infrastructure subsidized by the cities. The quality of schools in suburban areas is also largely higher than in cities.
- suburban areas have anywhere from 1/7 - 1/3 the crime rates of cities—even accounting for socioeconomic factors—which reduces personal and social harm. There is also vastly faster emergency response in suburban areas which save lives and stop culprits.
- mood disorders (anxiety, depression, etc) are about 40% more common in city dwellers then suburbanites, and that's strongly linked to the differing environments.
If the cost and quality of education, reduction of crime, and mental health aren't benefits to society as a whole, I don't know what is.
Please understand, I do not suggest that city living is "bad". I do, however, suggest that diversity of living environments is good, for the individual and for society as a whole.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-ur...
I live in Toronto, Canada, and we probably have as much variation with-in the city as between the suburban and urban areas given that different neighbourhoods with-in the city have different average incomes.
Access to green spaces does help help in many ways, but that may be countered by the lack of activity in car-centric areas:
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/the-publi...
Further, lower density building necessities eating up more land for the same population than higher density. You're paving over the very 'green' land that is providing benefits in the first place.
And 'urban living' also exists on a spectrum: it is not necessary to design things as scrunched together as (say) Manhattan. Brooklyn and Queen's (for example) can support walkable neighbourhoods with useful public transit (and cycling), while having SFH, garages/lanes, backyards, etc.
I'm less against 'real' rural living than suburban design. The post-WW2 suburbs just seem to be the worst of both worlds.