Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#11

Post by homonculus1 »

georgia_peach wrote: post #7

Of course it is. Now let's discuss the Chesterton Fence: When did they start subsidizing it, and why? In the US, remember that Eisenhower sold the interstate highway system as a defense item. After the firebombing of European cities, after Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and with the potential of the cold war turning hot, doesn't it make sense to "nudge" people out of the cities--to de-densify the population centers? And with…

There's no need for such an policy even if it were a strategic goal. Urban environments have been "nudging" people towards greener pastures since the 1960's.

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#12

Post by OOD »

I'd like to see if any of these results and conclusions change if you take into account the total tax basis for suburbanites (income tax, sales tax spent in the cities they don't live in, etc.) versus the relatively less well off inner city urbanites. Not all areas are the same, but in places like the Bay Area, a lot of the high income earners move out to the suburbs (think Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, etc.).

To add, a lot of the economic activities in downtown areas are by workers and customers who live in the suburbs and commute into town. I don't believe that was taken into account.

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#13

Post by georgia_peach »

homonculus1 wrote: post #11
georgia_peach wrote: post #7

Of course it is. Now let's discuss the Chesterton Fence: When did they start subsidizing it, and why? In the US, remember that Eisenhower sold the interstate highway system as a defense item. After the firebombing of European cities, after Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and with the potential of the cold war turning hot, doesn't it make sense to "nudge" people out of the cities--to de-densify the population centers? And with…

There's no need for such an policy even if it were a strategic goal. Urban environments have been "nudging" people towards greener pastures since the 1960's.

Interstate highway system, FHA/VA, Fannie/Freddie, desegregation/civil rights passed by otherwise racist deep-south representatives, and the most disruptive civic changes coinciding with the touch-and-go moments of the cold war... Necessary or not, it happened.

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#14

Post by ramblenode »

OOD wrote: post #12

I'd like to see if any of these results and conclusions change if you take into account the total tax basis for suburbanites (income tax, sales tax spent in the cities they don't live in, etc.) versus the relatively less well off inner city urbanites. Not all areas are the same, but in places like the Bay Area, a lot of the high income earners move out to the suburbs (think Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, etc.).…

Strongtowns.org has some research on this. It points toward most suburbs being indirectly subsidized by the tax base of nearby urban areas after costs are accounted for.

The basic problem is density and scaling of infrastructure and utilities. The cost of many utilities (power, water, roads) is dominated by the distance from the source to the hookup. When buildings only scale laterally (single story) then comparatively more utilities are needed than when they can scale vertically into the 3rd dimension. This gets exaggerated because the population of a volume tends to scale much faster vertically than laterally (apartments are much closer together than single family dwellings) so most of the utility cost ends up being the lateral footprint of a neighborhood.

Looking at this another way, the taxes of lateral neighborhoods would need to grow exponentially faster than those in vertical neighborhoods to maintain the same unit of infrastructure.

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#15

Post by OOD »

How does this work for areas like Texas where most of the suburbs are not in the cities that are supposedly subsidizing them? An example would be the outskirts of Houston where the residents pay for their own utilities through MUDs: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/...

It may not be sustainable for them, but it doesn't seem to be subsidized by the larger city tens of miles away.

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#16

Post by doktorhladnjak »

OOD wrote: post #15

How does this work for areas like Texas where most of the suburbs are not in the cities that are supposedly subsidizing them? An example would be the outskirts of Houston where the residents pay for their own utilities through MUDs: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... It may not be sustainable for them, but it doesn't seem to be subsidized by the larger city tens of miles away.

Via counties and states

Re: Suburbia Is Subsidized: Here's the Math

#17

Post by OOD »

doktorhladnjak wrote: post #16
OOD wrote: post #15

How does this work for areas like Texas where most of the suburbs are not in the cities that are supposedly subsidizing them? An example would be the outskirts of Houston where the residents pay for their own utilities through MUDs: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/... It may not be sustainable for them, but it doesn't seem to be subsidized by the larger city tens of miles away.

Via counties and states

But the MUDs are outside of the cities and pay for the utilities in their defined area... The cities and counties aren't paying for what the MUDs provide, unless I'm mistaken...
Post reply on HN