My assertion is that some progressives just want people to live in cities even if those people are willing and able to bear the supposed additional costs of living in suburbs. They see any extra consumption by another as an attack against the environment or as inequity.
Much of the additional costs are actually borne locally: water, sewage, roads, garbage. With increased installation of solar panels, even electricity is increasingly borne locally.
Also, given the inefficiency of large bureaucracies and the costs of scale in the US, it is somewhat unclear to me if urban areas are really lower cost per capital compared to suburban areas. Look at the Central tunnel project in SF.
I have seen people arguing to change zoning so that walkable city kind of building is legal. Because in many places, zoning excludes mix of houses and businesses. You have to have houses only place and then businesses place. That is pretty much opposite of what you claim. Maybe in some later step they someone would try to make suburbs illegal, but right not, the issue is "make walkable pleasant city legal".
Second, your claims about price are purely theoretical. As of now, suburbs require more money and dont have all that many solar panels.
I never claimed that suburbs were cheaper. Look at the comment by another party above. It conflicts with what you just said about suburbs being more expensive per capita. It would be better to have better data on this. Links please.
I just claimed that perhaps people should be free to do as they wish as far as living in suburbs vs cities.
You then claim that many places do not allow mixed use. I assume that this is part of your freedom argument. Guess what. Many of the smaller towns in the Bay Area have already changed zoning to allow this. My city did this.
The real conflict, at least in the Bay Area, is between the part of tech trying to limit salary cost by limiting housing prices and the part of tech (and non tech) who have already bought and want their housing prices to rise. It is mostly a zero sum game.
It isn't about equity and environment. If it were, then the part of tech trying to limit salary cost would actually lower their consumption and would actually contribute towards those less fortunate.
In reality, a very small percentage actually cared about the less fortunate. You should see how often volunteering was cancelled due to lack of participation. Happened multiple times in multiple large companies.
Also, very few people in tech even think about limiting their consumption. How big are the houses of the C levels? How many people bought Teslas, new houses, etc upon IPO?
Both sides are mostly act out of their self interest. Inequity, environment, character of neighborhood, quality of life, etc are mostly false warriors in this battle.
Housing owners want ever increasing housing value and all the associated amenities: quality of life, cultural events, fine foods, trips, etc...
Tech owners want to basically drive housing to as low as possible. Think Singapore or Japan.
Well, COVID-19 resolved this conflict of tech vs tech. Welcome to remote work which means that companies can hire anywhere.
Much of the additional costs are actually borne locally: water, sewage, roads, garbage. With increased installation of solar panels, even electricity is increasingly borne locally.
Also, given the inefficiency of large bureaucracies and the costs of scale in the US, it is somewhat unclear to me if urban areas are really lower cost per capital compared to suburban areas. Look at the Central tunnel project in SF.