I note that you still have not presented any evidence for your statement that the post-war subsidization of suburban growth was driven in part by a deliberate plan for decentralization.

I have presented much evidence pointing out that it was explicit coordinated government plan to boost the building, auto, and furniture industries, among others, and explicit policy to promote racial segregation.

Yet despite the evidence that these long-term plans existed, you say that the government doesn't do coordinated plans because 'Getting too specific looks too much like a "five year plan".'?

Let me quote from the Wikipedia article on the FHA:

> In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority established mortgage underwriting standards that significantly discriminated against minority neighborhoods.[13] Between 1945 and 1959, African Americans received only 2 percent of all federally insured home loans.[14] As the significance of subsidized mortgage insurance on the housing market grew, home values in inner-city minority neighborhoods plummeted. Also, the approval rates for minorities were equally low. After 1935, the FHA established guidelines to steer private mortgage investors away from minority areas.

How is that simply "cheap money" being available, and not something like a coordinated plan across far more than five years?

You wrote: "Until the 90s, farmers were subsidized even harder than housing. So, money already flowing to keep the rurals in-place"

The second part of that sentence - 'keep the rurals in-place' - is not correct. Quoting the Wikipedia page on "Rural flight":

> Post-World War II rural flight has been caused primarily by the spread of industrialized agriculture. Small, labor-intensive family farms have grown into, or have been replaced by, heavily mechanized and specialized industrial farms. While a small family farm typically produced a wide range of crop, garden, and animal products—all requiring substantial labor—large industrial farms typically specialize in just a few crop or livestock varieties, using large machinery and high-density livestock containment systems that require a fraction of the labor per unit produced. For example, Iowa State University reports the number of hog farmers in Iowa dropped from 65,000 in 1980 to 10,000 in 2002, while the number of hogs per farm increased from 200 to 1,400.

Where does the money from farm subsidies go? Quoting https://theweek.com/articles/461227/farm-subsidies-welfare-p... :

> In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, ...

You wrote: "Then, with the fall of the USSR and the "peace dividend", one huge reason for suffering suburbia had been removed. Guess when urban renewal started taking off?"

People are only listening now because the old ways, which started in the post-war years, are no longer affordable. It was a "Growth Ponzi Scheme" - https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ - and we reached the end of the scam and discovered we've dug ourselves into a hole. The new urban movement offers a way out of that hole. (Another is to raise taxes on the rich, but our system is set up to keep that from happening.)

As that link points out, growth in America slowed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so before the end of the Cold War. Instead, "one significant factor was that our suburban cities were now starting to experience cash outflows for infrastructure maintenance."

I keep on pointing to standard references about the origins of suburbanization as a way to promote long-term business and racial policies. It would be nice to see what your evidence is that your nuclear war hypothesis has any justification beyond your personal beliefs.