[pope_meat]

The suburbs are economically unsustainable. Nobody wants to pay to redo the roads and pipes, but everybody wants to live with a private backyard. Perhaps we should make it so that you have to make it self sustainable, dirt roads, septic tanks, wells, and producing your own electricity.

[nickff]

The USA has been a suburban nation for quite a while now, and previous generations paid to lay down the roads and pipes. The interesting question is why poorer people with relatively crude technology were able to create this infrastructure, but we can no longer afford to maintain it. Infrastructure budgets have increased (in per-capita and inflation-adjusted terms), but our maintenance capacity has decreased; the question is why?

[alamortsubite]

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

[johnchristopher]

Isn't maintenance capacity linked to taxes, which have been decreasing in the US for decades (or so I hear) ? Also: manufacturing moved out of the US so everyone can buy off-the-shelf Asian parts and products so more money is left in people's pocket but that money ultimately goes to landlords who can raise prices ?

I am really stupid with economy stuff but I have the strong feeling that we - in the west - are living off of cheap credits and cheap debt and it gives the illusion of being rich because we can buy obligations and financial products and balance spreadsheets between tax-payer's money and private sectors and welfare states and debt payments, etc. but at the end of the day when we need to work on our infrastructure our money is not worth the paper it's printed on since our workers and our tools are not up to the task or we need to pay a huge premium to get some quality work ? Something like that...

Edit:grammar, spelling

[wishinghand]

Policy makers don’t raise enough taxes for pay for it.

[thaumasiotes]

Don't think of it as our maintenance capacity decreasing. Think of it as many more maintenance "requirements" having been added.

[DarylZero]

Income inequality squeezing the bottom of the tax base? The money was much more evenly distributed then.

[syntheweave]

Demographics + relative labor costs account for infrastructure's cost suddenly rising in the developed world. "Baumol's Cost Disease" plays some role, but I believe a full narrative is in order.

With a rapidly rising population and high immigration, the early 20th century US had a pool of cheap labor at the ready. The "cost/benefit of a life" was assumed lower because mortality was higher, i.e. assumed optimal societal use was to break a body with labor before disease took them. Grooming them for the professions would be a waste. Cities were relatively smaller but more crowded, with lower standards of living.

This changed by mid-century. Mortality was now down to historic lows which made the post-war baby boom have a uniquely lasting impact. A generation with expectations of long life now faces the prospect of "retiring well", which pushes them to focus on education and career and demand higher margins of safety in their everyday lives. This creates an inflection in the early 1970's - the same one everyone has remarked upon in finance, culture, and politics - as the boom generation reaches working age and floods into the markets, looking for jobs and assets. This allows the suburbs to continue to boom: the marginal cost of adding another subdivision is low, and the technical foundation is established.

Then fast forward 30 years, and you have a new large generation of working age, but the world isn't being built out to accommodate them. Cities have gone from disinvested to overpriced. The trades are now in neglect because of a new bias towards academics. They graduate into job and asset markets that are locked up by older cohorts who enjoy the benefits of still being alive and able to work at advanced age. This is the Millennial's dilemma: They have been groomed for jobs they can't access, and there's no war or other crisis that would let them be utilized. Infrastructure is something they could work on, but the political system biases towards pleasing earlier cohorts, who will interfere with any change to the arrangement, which they are now fully invested in (in all senses of the word). The costs of changing anything spiral out of control, the politics compounded by the fact that there's been a lot of productivity improvement in information and finance, but little in physical assets. If 20 guys slinging code contain more speculative value than 20 guys swinging hammers, you'll see a lot of investment in code and not hammers - and that gives you cost disease. The high price of infrastructure is in part reflective of an uncorrected disinterest. It's irrational exuberance, but the other way around: nobody wants to pay for quality when there is "something better to do," so every project that needs it is a special case deserving a high price tag.

Thus, deferred maintenance becomes the norm and stays that way until - just recently - mortality finally starts taking its course, the grip of the Boomers starts to slip, and the bills come due. The "Great Resignation" is in large part a reshuffling of jobs and assets preceded by the demographic changes and then catalyzed by the pandemic crisis, which is going to change the infrastructure investment climate towards a new equilibrium going forwards - even though the Biden infrastructure package has been cut, the trend of disinvestment has reversed.

There is a lot of interest in the future of construction right now, and in new technologies that don't just change the products, but also make construction jobs better, safer, and more productive - e.g. two people building a house rather than a crew of 10. And there is a market that will still likely bias suburban, but is ready to see a slightly denser built environment with lower car dependency. Our ideal goal is "denser yet less crowded" - crowds are a combination of people needing to travel to destinations (suddenly in decline with WFH) and the travel being space-and-time inefficient(big cars travelling long distances versus short walks). Do some "road diets", allow some fourplex lots and ADUs, and install some walkable retail - and you'll have the suburbs of the future.

[flomo]

I believe this to be complete bullshit, and the infrastructure deficit is far worse in large cities which supposedly have the population density to pay for it. Look at NYC: everything outside of central Manhattan seems like it's about to collapse. San Francisco is billions in the hole for maintaining the water system and so on. It seems to be mostly wishful thinking that the suburbs will go bankrupt to due to routine maintenance. (It is a problem in more sprawled-out exurbs to be sure.)

[onecommentman]

Just a note: NYC + San Francisco <<< the United States.

Most Expansive Definition of Population (TriState + Bay Area) — 28M Just the Population (USA) — 330M

Most Expansive Definition of Land area (TriState + Bay Area) — 11K sq mi Just the Land area (USA) — 4000K sq mi

A common bias for non-US folks is to put too much focus on “the biggest” US urban center.

For England, 20% of the population lives in “greater London”. For France, 15% live in the Paris unité urbaine.

It’s different in the US. The population of NYC is almost a rounding error in the total US population (~3%). The population of the NYC “Tri-State” area, in its most expansive definition, is ~6%. They are also the only folks who think NYC is any sort of unique cultural lead for the US.

The population of San Francisco actually is a rounding error for the total US population. The whole Bay Area is bigger, but only at about ~2% of the US population. And again, they are the only folks who think San Francisco is a unique cultural lead.

Both urban regions are actual rounding errors when it comes to US land area.

And divide by a factor of 10 when discussing the dense urban core of NYC or San Francisco, which is what some folks rant about. Just move the decimal point over one to the left. Yes, they are that small.

So don’t read too much into these sorts of (NYC+SF) discussions as a barometric reading on the entire US.

[menomatter]

I wonder if this has to do with they way taxes are spend. Does NYC generated taxes get spent on NYC? Or at least a decent percentage of it?

[mr_cyborg]

Counterpoint: The town I grew up in just turned 400 years old. Things haven’t always been perfect but it seems pretty self-sustaining at this point.

[alamortsubite]

Your hometown is probably a pretty cool place. The article, though, discusses car-centric sprawling American suburbia, which post-dates WWII and society's mass adoption of the automobile. It's not cool.

[true_religion]

> Perhaps we should make it so that you have to make it self sustainable, dirt roads, septic tanks, wells, and producing your own electricity.

With the exception of producing your own electricity and roads, that's how many (most?) of the suburbs in Virginia are.

However, if you do that then the average plot size usually goes up since septic installations need unused field space for drainage, and wells need a separate arera to draw from.

Roads can be private, but it mostly doesn't make sense to me since USPS and county services need to use the road as well. I'm not really sure why some roads are private and some aren't, but many neighborhoods with private roads will just use gravel or dirt to save costs.

Electricity, at least in my area, is hydro so that's as sustainable as the water cycle and since the river is within spitting distance, I doubt the cost of the powerlines is a real burden.

[jimbob45]

Not just that, but the towns where every house is an AirBNB or rental won’t even have voices that care to speak about the problems until it’s too late.

[starkd]

City life quickly becomes mundane and tiresome. People need suburbs for a place to go to get away from the craziness in the city.

[II2II]

Different people have different expectations of their environment and those expectations are likely to change throughout their life, but blanket statements like "people need suburbs" is a bit much. Personally, I think they're the worse of all worlds. Suburbs combine the worse aspects of urban life and the worse aspects of rural life, then try to present themselves as some sort of idyllic compromise.

I'm going to make a claim that you'll probably think is absurd: there is far more in common between a small town and a big city than there is between a small town and the suburbs. A small town and a big city are places where people live. People know each other because they see each other on the street as they go to work or get groceries. They meet each other in local businesses or community centres. Suburbs are simply places where people have their homes. Everything else takes place elsewhere. People are unlikely to know someone a block or two over, unless their kids go to the same school, simply because they never encounter each other on the streets and their lives are completely divergent outside of their (so called) community.

[eatonphil]

How can city life be both mundane and craziness?