A symbol of the United States that is gradually becoming a sad state.

It is a huge single-family housing complex.

Lawns and single-family homes were once objects of admiration as symbols of the American dream, but now they are a burden represented by sprawl.

Originally, in the United States, traditional cities based on direct access and public transportation were the trend.

It was only after World War II that low-density urban development, accessible only by car, became possible on a wide scale due to high housing demand and lower car prices.

The problem is that during the period of explosive growth, the surrounding areas were filled with low-density single-family housing complexes, putting a significant burden on the city’s finances.

First of all, of course, the area required for such urban development is much larger than that of an apartment complex or just a multi-family townhouse, and the roads, power grids, and water systems that must be laid are also much larger.

And you can’t just set up infrastructure and forget about it. Manpower and finances are needed to maintain the infrastructure, and as the infrastructure itself reaches the end of its lifespan, maintenance costs increase, and there comes a time when a large amount of money must be spent to completely replace it.

Furthermore, basic public services such as public security, firefighting, and education also have to cover a much larger physical area, resulting in higher costs.

In addition, common sense suggests that 1 million people live in single-family homes and commute by car in outskirts far from the city center.

When comparing commuting by car for only half of the commute and using the subway or bus for the rest, the commuting time, productivity of workers, and the burden on infrastructure are naturally much greater in the former.

And since the population density is low, the cost of infrastructure and public services per area is higher than in the old city center that was formed before such development took place, but the tax revenue is low.

In other words, as time passes, maintenance costs increase as the infrastructure deteriorates, and it becomes a miserable complex with low revenue from the start.

In fact, if only economic feasibility is considered, it is normal for it to collapse and disappear within one generation, but since the state and federal governments provide subsidies for more than 2/3 of the initial infrastructure cost,

Many cities are undergoing painful restructuring.

Just get a subsidy for a new urban development project

The practice of covering losses with new infrastructure built almost for free and tax revenues from newly developed areas.

took place.

Even if I did this, I made up for the shortfall with debt.

Now, as this cycle continues for generations, the urban structure itself has become the pinnacle of economic inefficiency, leaving city governments sitting on top of unmaintainable infrastructure and a mountain of debt.

And in the first place, making up for the loss with a new development project is also a good idea.

Basically, what is possible under the assumption that the city’s population and economy will grow.

It is.

Otherwise, even if it is newly developed, there will be no one to move in and buy it, and the city’s finances will literally collapse.

The reason Detroit collapsed as its manufacturing industry declined was not simply because the city saw a decline in tax revenue.

This is because the accumulated costs of low-density development cannot be compensated for by new population influx.

So in places like Detroit, rather than continue to maintain infrastructure that the city government cannot afford in an abandoned single-family residential area where only one or two households have moved out,

They simply purchase the houses, move the residents out, and even carry out a project to demolish hundreds of single-family homes.