And I'm completely in favor of personal preference. What rubs many urban dwellers is the gigantic subsidies heaped upon suburbs. I don't care where people live, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Which gigantic subsidies did you have in mind?

Ten seconds of googling gives perspectives from either end of the political spectrum:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/the-conservative...

http://grist.org/cities/starving-the-cities-to-feed-the-subu...

I'm aware of the home mortgage interest deduction. If that was what thrownaway meant, they could have said so, and we could discuss that. "lmgtfy" isn't an argument.

Interestingly, that Grist article doesn't attempt to quantify how much of the deduction goes to city vs. suburban property owners, so it's hard to get a grip on how "massive" a subsidy it is vs. say, community development grants and public transit set asides.

Is there a summary argument that also takes into account the wealth transfer from poor tenants to rich landlords that is created by making everybody rent instead of buy? If interest and tax writeoffs are a ~$140bil/yr subsidy, are there economic or social benefits greater than $140bil/yr that make it worth it?

If landlords are making huge profits off people who are renting in the cities rather than buying in the suburbs, then those tenants have an arbitrage opportunity to buy condos or coops.

You have to have capital or someone who trusts you with capital to buy large things, though, which is exactly what the previously vilified federal subsidies provide.