Earlier quoted context omitted.
By condo you mean apartment right? Condos are usually just apartments you own. Apartments are not inherently bad. They allow for density which, if you went through the tour this site provides, you know allows for cheaper public services. I've lived in many great apartments and a few bad ones. It's not the style of building that's bad, it's the owners and the laws they are forced to or not forced to follow. Suburbs ar…
> Suburbs are _heavily_ subsidized. They require a ton of money from taxpayers to sustain their existence. That's highly relative. Urban areas have high maintenance costs as well, precisely because of the higher density. The infrastructure requires more maintenance, higher sanitation costs, law enforcement, etc. Not to mention that cramming hundreds of people per km², surrounded by concrete and no vegetation, in smal…
Urban areas cost more in total, but less per capita. If you don't take that per capita measurement into account, it's pointless to claim things like this.
Here's a good infographic on this: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
See specifically the massive (4-10x) increase in costs for things like roads, sidewalks, water, sewers, transportation, etc. when we talk about suburban environments.
> Cities destroy the environment just by existing, and they hardly have enough green areas to sustain wild life.
Do you have a source for this? Living closer to the things you need in life such as energy, food, water, friends, family obviously leads to less waste of energy in getting to those things or having them come to you. Around wildlife, guess where they could and used to live before suburban sprawl? Right where the suburbs popped up. Your solution to increasing wildlife is continuing suburban sprawl? I highly recommend you research and provide sources before making claims like that.