Suburbanization
[1] As a consequence of the movement of households and businesses away from city centers, low-density, peripheral urban areas grow.
[2] Proponents of curbing suburbanization argue that sprawl leads to urban decay and a concentration of lower-income residents in the inner city,[3] in addition to environmental harm.
Areas along the river became industrialized and apartment buildings filled the places where factories did not replace the scattered houses.
[4][5] As veterans returned from war, their GI Bill benefits made it especially easy to buy homes in these new, cost-efficient neighborhoods, populating them quickly with young couples and new families.
Racially discriminatory housing policies in many areas prevented people of color from buying homes in the new suburbs, making them largely white-dominated spaces.
The overall effect of these developments is that both businesses and individuals now see an advantage to relocating to the suburbs, where the cost of buying land, renting space, and running their operations is cheaper than in the city.
This continuing dispersal from a single-city center has led to the advent of edge cities and exurbs, which arise out of clusters of office buildings built in suburban commercial areas, shopping malls, and other high-density developments.
[8] In many Eastern European countries, cities have the reputation of being dangerous or very expensive areas to live, while the suburbs are often viewed as safer and more conducive to raising a family.
Elsewhere processes of suburbanization seemed dominant, but their pace differed according to housing shortages, available finances, preferences, and the degree of 'permitted' informality.
Nonetheless, socialist legacies of underdeveloped infrastructure and the affordability crisis of transition differentiate post-socialist suburbs from their Western counterparts.
Allegedly, owner-building has become a household strategy to adapt to recession, high and volatile inflation, to cut construction costs, and to bridge access to housing.
The predominantly owner-built feature of most suburban housing, with the land often obtained at no cost through restitution policies or illegal occupation, allowed a mix of low-/middle-income households within these developments.
[19] The difference in drug mortality rates of suburban and urban spaces is sometimes fueled by the relationship between the general public, medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry.
These affluent individuals who are living in the suburbs often have increased means of obtaining otherwise expensive and potent drugs, such as opioids and narcotics through valid prescriptions.
[21] Adolescents and young adults are at an increased risk of drug abuse in suburban spaces due to the enclosed social and economic enclaves that surburbanization propagates.
When addressing public health concerns of drug abuse with patients directly, suburban health care providers and medical practitioners have the advantage of treating a demographic of drug abuse patients that are better educated and equipped with resources to recover from addiction and overdose.
[23] The disparity of treatment and initiatives between suburban and urban environments in regard to drug abuse and overdose is a public health concern.
Changes in infrastructure, industry, real estate development costs, fiscal policies, and diversity of cities have been easily apparent, as "making it to the suburbs", mainly in order to own a home and escape the chaos of urban centers, have become the goals of many American citizens.
As suburban industrial development becomes increasingly more profitable[citation needed], it becomes less financially attractive to build in high-density areas.
Public deficits can often grow as a result of suburbanization, mainly because property taxes tend to be lower in less densely populated areas.
[30] Suburbanization often resulted in lower tax revenues for cities, leading to a reduction in the quality of public services due to the exodus of wealthier populations.
