People hold those preferences because when you live in the burbs you bear less of the cost of the externalities of urban sprawl. Basically, you get more bang for your buck.

The property tax rate is the same for a whole municipality whether you are downtown in high density housing or in the burbs.

You need more roads/public transportation/water mains/gas mains/buried cables etc to serve fewer people in the suburbs.

Make property taxes proportional to the infrastructure required to support a neighbourhood.

If in Canada they get gas, water, sewer and electricity paid by taxes then why not just charge the users instead? And yes, the payment for utility includes the maintenance cost. Roads wear depends on the amount of traffic so if you really wanted to be fair you might end up with the dense urbanites paying more (also we supposed to pay for this with the fuel and registration taxes in the US).

Public transportation in suburbia? Does it really happen in Canada? In the US suburbia subsidizes public transportation without using it.

This is a terrible argument. The costs associated with building wide, rather than building tall are hidden in future taxes and not disclosed to the homebuyer. Pretending there's some 'all costs' calculator over the useful life of the asset which is presented to homebuyers is incorrect.

Not only that, but tax funds are typically funneled from denser, more sensibly planned areas of cities to the more well-off sprawled suburbs. So people who aren't even involved in the process of participating in the market for sprawl built houses will pay for the resultant externalities created by the need for maintenance.

That’s true, but take a look at the zoning laws as well. Some places have better zoning laws than the US and Canada. I think that Japan is frequently mentioned here, because there are only a dozen types of zones and all of the ones that allow housing allow the property owner to rebuild at a higher density. (There are several types of industrial–only zones that give them a way to prevent homes from being built too near heavy industry.)

That's true, but it's also the case that most Canadians (and Americans) would be very dissatisfied with the quality of Japanese housing. Frankly it's crap -- thin walls, single-pane windows even today, no garages, tiny kitchens with two burners and no ovens...

In Japan people are far more reliant on the conscientiousness of their neighbors to maintain a peaceful and quiet environment than people in Canada and the United States are. They also have a low crime rate and safer, cleaner inner cities.

Obviously an entire population lives this way, and it works well for them, but that kind of housing situation would be a hard sell in North America.

That may be true, and it would be nice if people here were so considerate as well... yeah that's not happening.

However the ZONING codes could be adopted to much benefit. The BUILDING codes, I still maintain we need to spec even higher, so that I can have a refuge of solitude from the sounds, smells, and presence of Wheaton's Law failing humans.

Is Japan really what unusual? From what I hear the building codes are uniform so the spec for high density housing is similar to that of a single family home.

If builders in Canada have to build high density housing to a more costly specification then it’s justified that they won’t find it cost effective even if given the chance to do so.

In effect, the low cost of Japanese housing could be from both the zoning code and the building code. (As for culture, those two affect culture and are affected by culture so it’s hard to distinguish.)

The quality of the buildings that get built is unrelated to the type of buildings that are allowed.

What a current buyer wants in a Nash equilibrium of weird incentives and zoning laws, is the Just the Way Things Are?

Zoning laws don't come out of nowhere. People like living in suburbs, so their governments pass zoning laws that keep the area suburban.

Zoning laws are an expression of preferences by the existing homeowners who want their neighborhoods to retain their current characteristics.

Look at the history of how this happened. The suburbs did not magically appear out of nowhere after WWII against the wishes of the population, and they were not legalized into existence with zoning laws. They were built, people liked them and bought houses in them, and then they passed zoning laws to keep them.

Ban commuter cars from cities and watch the demand for high density urban housing explode.

Basically replicate the pre-car environment that the world's greatest cities were designed and developed during.

Many large city centers in Europe already restrict or outright ban commuter cars.

I was speaking more as a solution for American cities. :)

Yes. So, this is tried and known to work.

In that case it seems like the developers having more or less rules doesn't actually matter, no?

It does matter because most of the city of Toronto is zoned to prevent apartment buildings, low-rises, duplex, etc. Only a single family home is permitted.

The only things being built in Toronto are either single family homes, or giant 50 floors condos. It takes YEARS of consultations to build anything in Toronto so developers only bother going through that process for very very high buildings. It's not worth it for the type of higher density apartment of 3-4 stories.

It's called the missing middle, there's a good podcast/article here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-missing-middle/

If 10% of people have the means to be willing to pay 20x for a home constructed in a way that 90% of people can't afford, that is what your average homebuyer wants.