Planetizen called this anti-urban article “frank, tough talk at it’s [sic] most provocative”. It sounds somewhat scholarly on the surface, but dig in and it stinks. They use the same scare tactics Joel Kotkin used recently, descriptions that suggest people are being forcibly marched out of the countryside and into urban high-rise towers. Sure, that has happened in a few places and times in history, but it is not the norm. In fact, you could argue that history’s greatest tragedies (if you measure simply by body count) were caused by the exact opposite, people being marched out of cities and onto rural farms at gunpoint, only to starve in the tens of millions (Ukraine, China, Cambodia). For the most part, cities form organically when people concentrate in pursuit of economic opportunity. Agriculture and mining are just as necessary as they ever were, but we don’t need large numbers of people engaged in these any more because they are largely automated. For large numbers of people to achieve a high living standard, the bulk of us have to be working together in higher-tech pursuits like manufacturing, design and invention of new products, processes, and ideas. This is the direction our species has evolved, and there is no stopping it now.

Much of their argument rests on the idea that cities can be stressful, and that they are linked to diseases of the affluent and physically inactive such as diabetes and heart disease. Concentrating people certainly gives rise to obvious stressors like noise, air pollution, heat, and traffic deaths, and less obvious ones like reduced leisure time and contact with nature. Richer and more egalitarian-minded cities are doing more to mitigate these stressors, while developing cities and cities where the pursuit of profit dominates everything else are doing little. There are ways to mitigate the stressors – noise abatement, non-motorized transportation, parks and green infrastructure to name a few. We need to focus on maximizing the positive aspects of cities while removing the stressors.

We should all welcome serious, scholarly thinking about the form future human settlements could take to maximize the potential and minimize the impact of all of us, but this is not serious scholarly thinking so let’s not take it seriously.