And the city needs transport networks and power grids that reach far beyond the city limits.

The only logical difference is a matter of scale and limits.

The same rules apply to any region that has dependencies outside of its own borders.

The only way to not be subsidized in some fashion is to live directly off of the land in the form of some nomadic tribe.

We’re talking suburbs. My city block contains literally thousands of homes and commercial properties in a zone that would contain, at most a few hundred McMansions. The cost to deliver services needed are within an order of magnitude of a suburb but the tax base is significantly higher.

It cost more to maintain infrastructure that experiences an order of magnitude more usage than an infrequently used set of infrastructure.

The hinges of a door used once a day will last longer than the hinges of a door used one thousand.

A road that sees one delivery truck a month will last longer than one that sees thousands.

I'm trying to figure out if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me.

Rural: Low usage, low maintenance low services (road,power,internet), low tax base

Urban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), high tax base

Suburban: High usage, high maintenance, high services (water, sewer, road, power, internet, transit), low tax base

Only one of these, by necessity needs subsidizing ...

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that property tax on suburban property is quite high.

Yes, but it's still not close to the total aggregated costs of delivery of services. Suburbs are REALLY inefficient and expensive.