Can we refrain from the reddit-esque creepy "gotcha" of digging through post history of another user instead of addressing the argument at hand?
> You posted yourself about the ridiculous subsidies that US suburbia gets so you clearly understand that the way Americans live in the suburbs is completely out of touch with how much it really costs
Yep.
> and very few people if any would actually choose suburbia if they had to bear those costs.
I don't agree. It's arguable we do already bear much of these costs, as a lot of infrastructure is paid for through development fees (higher housing prices) or through federal & state grants (which we all pay for). I understand cities subsidize suburban areas to some extent, but that's largely from business tax that, again, we all pay for in higher prices.
> Americans are “choosing this”
Look at the pandemic trends, that haven't really reversed since. People left cities and suburban / rural property values shot up compared to big city real estate.
> oning laws are preventing better alternatives from being created
No, they're keeping nice neighborhoods nice low density neighborhoods. Like the inhabitants of those neighborhoods want them to be.
> Whenever I have Americans over visiting Brussels
Something tells me "Americans who want to visit Brussels" has a strong pro-density sampling bias. You're also seeing the initial reaction and not the long term reaction.
> His mind was blown
But would he really live there, or was he just surprised by the different infrastructure?
For clarity, I live right in the middle in one of the most walkable places in the US. In the past, I’ve lived in suburban and rural areas. I understand the pro's of walkability, but I also understand suburbanites and rural folks don't want those pros because of the cons that come with them.