I'm not talking about everyone moving to the country. I'm talking about localizing power/sewer/water infrastructure in medium density areas like suburbs. If you read the article you understand that its the suburban sprawl that is the expensive areas to maintain. High density downtown cores fund themselves just fine.
> High density downtown cores fund themselves just fine.
How? I live in city of chicago and roads here are just terrible, there are potholes everywhere. Chicago Suburbs are a superior in terms of roads, sidewalks ect. Not sure if you are saying that people in city are "just fine" with poor infrastuture ?
Strong Towns covers this: The whole “the suburbs are fine/better” is part of the pyramid scheme. Sure, they’re fine for the first 20-40 years. But then they deteriorate and the maintenance costs pile up. Tax rates increase to compensate. Wealthy residents who basically run their lives on tax avoidance simply move to a more recently developed suburb and the rest stay and suffer through a broke government, forced to do things like rely on police fines to sustain the budget (Ferguson, MO).
The “ring of wealth” moves around over the decades due to the pyramid scheme effect.
It isn’t hard to find suburbs with far worse roads and infrastructure than the city of Chicago. Maple Heights, OH, Parma, OH, Euclid, OH. I’m sure Chicagoland has plenty of them, I’m just not familiar with them. You also won’t see any upper middle class people living in these suburbs, not anymore.
The city really isn't severable from the burbs. Businesses based in the city create a lot money, but they are mostly staffed with people from the burbs.
Depends on which suburbs you’re referring to. The north shore, full of old suburbs, has awful roads. Most of the side streets are un-maintained original cobblestone. It’s like driving on a wave pool.
