Do you think this country would be better off without suburbs?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I actually think the question is poorly worded.  The definition of suburb is not "a sprawling mass of low density commercial and residential properties tied together by inefficient infrastructure."

It simply means the area immediately bordering a city.

Of course our country would be better off without urban sprawl, as it is very inefficient and expensive to maintain (hence the depreciation of property value in many suburbs very soon after they are built).  Once the people that first moved into the 'burb move out, they are often replaced with lower income people who simply cannot afford to keep up their houses nor are they willing to pay the high taxes necessary to maintain the very expensive infrastructure, which only becomes more expensive as their income drops.

This effect would be reduced if we practiced denser building practices and had more public transit that was built with public tax dollars and operated with user fees.

Suburban America was born long before WWII, though.  Cities sprawled out from their centers with single family housing for decades before hand.  The difference was that the family was larger, so even with fewer housing units, the population was quite a bit higher, thus public transit was more effective since the density was higher.

Public transit to the suburbs these days is almost impossible except in park and ride situations.  But we could be reaching a point where gas is so expensive that even if it costs $8 each way to take public transit to work, it might be worth it.