I’m big on urbanism and walkable cities and absolutely don’t mind people who don’t want to live in cities. We don’t tend to argue rural areas shouldn’t exist, but rather point out that suburban areas have a lot of problems and are way more common than they should be, when looking at demand for mixed use development, walkable cities, etc.

For what it’s worth, for most of human existence rural towns existed without need for cars, so there’s still some truth to the idea that America has been rebuilt for the car, even in rural areas. There’s a variety of explanations out there for why and how they worked, but one I’m a fan of is how many rural towns would organize around a central “main street”, and keep the houses near it while the rest of their land spread outward. That way food, entertainment, and neighbors were all still easily accessible despite the large average amount of land.

And tbh, even setting that aside, I don’t think many urbanists actually have an issue with rural areas. The movement really focuses on suburbia. A lot of the problems stem from suburbs being spread out like rural areas, but with city level amenities, without paying the amount of taxes to get those amenities that far out. Most notably, paved roads are extremely expensive to maintain and gas taxes are not high enough to pay for it. But to some extent most services suburbs get are going to be subsidized by those living in a nearby city, because it’s just so much cheaper to provide those services when everyone lives closer together. And besides the subsidization, suburbs (unlike both cities and rural towns) just have a lot of qualities to them that make them bad for the environment and unpleasant and dangerous to live in - I understand not wanting to live in a city, but no one thinks hour long commutes through rush hour traffic is a positive.