It really is sustainable, though. This take has been going around for some time and I think it is pretty wrong headed. (1) we seem to pay more for roads than any other industrialized nation and (2) infrastructure of all kinds, including roads, is criminally underfunded in America, as the parent was pointing out

Sprawl has thinned out development to the point that tax revenues from low-density cities can't support the crumbling infrastructure that has been built for it.

Over the past 50 years, Pittsburgh and other similar cities have tripled their developed areas while the region's population remains flat. That's a lot of additional infrastructure - roads, sewers, power, water and gas lines - to maintain without new revenue to maintain it.

Strong Towns has referred to this as the "growth ponzi scheme" and it's only going to get worse as population growth slows in this country.

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

Strongtowns is just wrongheaded too. I have seen several articles debunking this one recently. I don't think it is a growth ponzi scheme for several reasons. It gets referenced here a lot, but it isn't very credible when you dig into their figures and math.

Would you happen to have the rebutting articles? I'd be curious to hear their criticism.

To me it adds up. I live in the a city that's sprawled without growth. I see the lifecycle

1. Used to be a dense city with most houses being doubles, and 3-5 story apartment buildings.

2. Built area has tripled since 1970 into mostly SFH suburbs, but population is the same

3. Outside the very newest suburbs, infrastructure has decayed tremendously. Taxes haven't really increased, the only time sewers or roads ever get repaired is with grants from the feds.

It happened to the city and now it's happening to the post-war suburbs.

I've been waiting a decade to read a good rebuttal to this. Please, post it here so I can read it and respond.

If you've seen several articles recently I would like to see one.