It's kind of disappointing how much pigeonholing sibling commenters are doing in this thread. If I had kids, I sure as hell wouldn't raise them in the suburbs. Less people are having kids in-part because more people live in cities in NA and the calculation is made that not only is it unaffordable to raise a family, but there's no availability either. The suburbs would be my choice if I already had the kids and ran out of viable options to house them where I live, in an urban area.
People planning to have kids want to live in the suburbs because the U.S., in its infinite wisdom, funds schools from local property taxes. If you live where there are nice houses, you get to send your kids to nice schools.
In many cities some of the most expensive real estate is in or adjacent to the downtown area because those areas were built before cars and so they’re walkable and appropriately dense. Since they are rare now and illegal to rebuild, the value of those neighborhoods is quite high and they are often considered the nicer homes. Architecturally there is little doubt. Only a custom build can compare.
Most in the suburbs don’t live in a “nice home”. There are more expensive homes dictated by tiers where you have more square footage and maybe a pool or something but these homes aren’t particularly nice either and aren’t well designed in the interior or exterior. Typically this is because there is too much space to do anything neat or useful.
Of course you’re right that many states fund schools through property tax and why I’m bemused by Republican efforts to initiate school voucher programs because based on typical policy relying on home ownership and property taxes to fund schools “keeps the undesirables out”. Once you go the voucher route you can’t do that anymore. Of course you can say well they’ll charge extra fees and such, but that’s assuming that families in the suburbs can afford extra monthly payments on top of everything else and I just don’t see it.
On the other hand vouchers can be a nice tool. Why should someone be forced to go to a bad school because they can only afford rent or a mortgage in the cheaper part of town? Maybe every kid gets a voucher to attend any public school they wish and the schools have to adjust. Finding a way to create competition within the public school system should be examined. Districting and property taxes for schools are probably regressive, especially for a child who has very little agency in the matter but has the most need.
Houses in the suburbs end up costing more than they contribute in property taxes. I'd guess though that it's a possible inequity that the suburbs pay directly into local school in those suburbs, and more efficient housing developments subsidize their infrastructure for them instead of funding schools.
The U.S in it's infinite wisdom is great at siphoning money away from people who have the least of it.
(I have no idea if that's the case or not BTW)