because it's more efficient? The services will help more people because of population density. I mean, the math is obvious. I'm not sure what the argument is. Nobody is saying city folk are more important. There are simply more of them.

Yet, tight population densities also have detrimental environmental effects, such as heat islands, higher levels of noxious gasses, modification or pollution of natural drainage, losses of open green spaces just to name a few.

Rural areas typically don't modify the local drainage (you're not likely connected to a sewer, you have a septic system). They don't become heat islands are there's relatively little pave or concreted. The noxious gasses aren't usually a problem due to lower traffic, usage and density, except in some mountain valleys where you get temperature inversions over winter that trap some of that.

The problems are technological/economical. Getting power is a pain in the ass, yet we've mostly solved that, likewise with traditional phone land-lines. Internet access is abysmal. I get better internet connectivity on my cell phone than my parents can get in their house because local providers won't run cable/fiber because it's too expensive for too few subscribers, but the federal government mandated access to both power & phone and we have those.

I've lived in cities - they typically failed to provide better services than lower density suburbs, despite having a bigger tax base and "efficiencies". There are many reasons for this, but cities do not become magically more efficient or well run with more people. Sadly, the opposite is usually true.

I think you've bought a bill of goods that a certain group of people are selling, without actually having lived it.

> I've lived in cities - they typically failed to provide better services than lower density suburbs

I think this is an almost uniquely American phenomenon. In most places in the world, the suburbs are where you grudgingly live when you can't afford housing in the city.

I'd also say that wealthier people want to live in suburbs, because there they can have a whole house for themselves while also maintaining some closeness to the city center. Only poor people or not-yet-settled foreigners really live inside the city even though their costs might even be higher than paying off a house in the suburbs. And now if you're a service provider where would you focus your services? On the monoculture with money in the suburbs or on the poor and very differentiated city dwellers? The other way around the city centers are also better for startups because you haven't got the infrastructure to provide for a large, high-demand customer base yet, and prefer a niche. Multicultural hot pots are better sources of small niches with low requirements.

I live in a city as well. I thought we were comparing cities to rural areas, not suburbs? My belief would be that suburbs are not good for society - they're land inefficient and get more resources than they should because more affluent people live in them.

Anyway I was just offering a basic justification for why society would focus on improving lives in cities as opposed to rural areas.

>The services will help more people because of population density.

You're assuming a centralized distribution model and that the overhead of centralization is more than made up for with economics of scale.

edit: is that not the implied assumption?

Well I didn't downvote you if that's the implication :)

Sure, I suppose it is.. do you mean to suggest that the assumption is false?

Are you from Mexico?