GI Bill suburbia was built by private home builders and contractors, not the government. They were not public works. The government subsidized the loans.

Government loan subsidies, government loan guarantees, additional subsidies in the mortgage interest rate deduction, local government paying for infrastructure (roads/utilities), ...

perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.

Also, say a city or state government wants to build a low-cost/low-income housing (or take historical examples if you will), the type of undesirable stuff the parent was talking about. Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?

And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor? Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?

Of course the government subcontracts the work out to do the actual construction. By the government has no incentive to build livable housing. Government employees don’t live in the housing. The government doesn’t have a business reputation to uphold. As crazy as it might sound, those who live in a community just might have a better understanding of how it should be developed compare to those on the outside.

>...perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.

You're taking an incorrect definition of "public works". Words have meaning: "Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community."

Suburbia was not constructed by the government, and is not for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. It is for the use of a private owner.

Suburbia is by definition not a public works. QED.

>Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?

Many times it's a mix of both. Cities and states employ thousands of plumbers, electricians, etc. Nonetheless, if you get a house constructed by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC, but they subcontract a large percent of the actual construction out to subcontractors, you'd still say your house was built by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC. That's who you'd go to for warranty issues, for construction progress, etc. Same applies for the government and public works.

>And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor?

For the same reasons private industry is better at building practically... everything.

>Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?

Government for sure because they can save money and face zero liability issues down the line. Insanely impossible to be fired so you can be lazy and cut corners all day and you'll still keep your job, and they projects are constantly cutting corners to save on materials. Then after you poison (Camp Lejeun) thousands of people you just shrug because no one goes to jail.