this seems like a natural end to the author's aptly named 'Suburban Experiment'. once these true costs are factored in and some really unpleasant decisions made, it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of smaller tier cities/burbs will fold up due to a cycle of tax increases due to true revenue required => people leave => less tax base => death.
but honestly, that seemingly had to happen. the true cost of 'burbs is just way higher than anyone wanted to admit (or tax). the huge overhead of services + spreading them out over massive areas (relative to dense cities) seems to be untenable long term.
The suburb where I grew up is like this. The city can't get any tenants for vacant commercial and industrial lots. The school district is loosing enrollment and closing branches. Recently trash and recycling has been privatized. The budget hole cannot be closed because the governor cut funding to municipalities. I think it's starting to hit a bottom though. While there isn't any new construction to speak of, as boomers pass or move a surprising amount of younger families are moving in, probably because houses are only 100-200k.
I don't know what the end results look like. More ebb and flow I guess. I will say that this is a middle-middle class suburb; the upper middle class suburb it borders with the excellent school district and an equinox is doing great with homes selling for north of 500k.
i'm an urbanist, but even to me, "experiment" sounds needlessly antagonistic. it wasn't an experiment, but rather a deliberate set of decisions to give citizens what they wanted despite the (possibly foreseeable) problems.
government subsidization was manageable when out-migration didn't demand the resources it does now, in terms of standards/regulations (roads, drainage, electricity, water, sewage, internet, etc.), process (bureaucracy, legal challenges), graft/corruption, and the sizeable population now in (and moving to) the suburbs/exurbs, all in a robustly growing and more equitable economy.
we've since realized that costs go up superlinearly, which makes it a bad use of resources, so instead we advocate denser urban areas, which provide economies of scale on the infrastructure dollar.
but honestly, that seemingly had to happen. the true cost of 'burbs is just way higher than anyone wanted to admit (or tax). the huge overhead of services + spreading them out over massive areas (relative to dense cities) seems to be untenable long term.