It is undeniable that we live in a car-centric society and that many people would benefit from improved public transit and walkability, but meaningful change doesn’t come from simply saying that cars are bad. Meaningful change requires compromise and a willingness for everyone to consider the merits of alternative viewpoints. In order for Americans to start considering urbanist talking points en masse, the conversation needs to dig far deeper than just saying that cars are bad and stating that public transportation will fix all of the woes of our society.
Ultra Urbanism is a viewpoint that has gained traction in online spaces like YouTube and Instagram. Some of the largest online creators in this space include YouTuber Not Just Bikes who mainly focuses on the transit infrastructure of Amsterdam and CityNerd who discusses transit struggles and options in North America. The main tenets of this view include the importance of public transport, walkable cities and decreasing reliance on cars. While these ideals are the foundation of cities with sustainable transport options, many spaces where ultra urbanists tout these views have turned into echo chambers where meaningful discussions about specific solutions never get discussed.
These communities quickly turn into conversations of self-adulation, where those who promote this utopian future in which public transit suddenly becomes available are the enlightened ones, and those who raise questions about the path to get there must be horrible people who hate our planet. When insiders immediately attack the outsiders of a community with pretentious rhetoric, it creates a tremendous barrier to meaningful engagement with that community. Compounding the issue, if the ultra urbanist community does engage in discourse, discussion can quickly reach a stalemate as the other party feels like they’re being attacked without warning.
One of the best examples of this is when Not Just Bikes, posted a series of (now deleted) tweets stating that people should “just give up on North America” and that those who are “trying to fix the US” are “watching the wrong channel.” This attitude gets to the very core of the problem with online ultra urbanism: they are only arguing about the “utopia” that cities like Amsterdam are with strong transit infrastructure while refusing to propose solutions for places like North America.
When urbanists immediately jump to hating cars and those who drive them, it feels like a personal attack on anyone who is a car lover or even just commuters who must drive to work every day. Saying that cars are bad and that everyone should immediately stop driving and take the MARTA instead ignores many very real barriers that exist between today and Atlanta becoming the next Amsterdam.
There are many solutions, from investing more money into public transport systems to building better cycling infrastructure, like we see on campus today, to addressing the economic reasons people have to live driving distance from their jobs. Yet, none of these solutions are at the forefront of the rhetoric of urbanism. Instead, at the forefront of urbanism is trolling people who are victims of the system that urbanists claim to want to address. The worst of this community abandons nuanced solutions that do not fit easily into an Instagram caption or YouTube title to make it easier for content to do well on social media, creating more polarizing content and conclusions.
It can be almost impossible to convince those who believe cars are the ultimate evil that there are utilitarian or cultural benefits to cars. It neglects the reality of those who live in rural areas and therefore require access to a personal vehicle to get groceries or even mail. There are millions of Americans completely written out of the conversation because in this imagined sustainable microcosm everyone would need to live in a dense urban center for the urbanist pipe dream to come true. Refusing to understand the weight and sense of alarm that comes with telling people they need to overhaul a major part of their lifestyle, especially by shaming them for choices beyond their control, is a terrible way to convince people of your opinions.
Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge that the geographic and cultural differences in different places impact the optimal solution to infrastructure problems reflects the inflexible and shallow nature of the argument that public transit can fix everything from the climate crisis to economic stratification.
Until urbanists are willing to engage with alternate viewpoints, consider that there are scenarios in which cars make more sense than public transit, or bring fresh solutions to the table. It is highly unlikely that those who do not see the need for public transit will have their minds changed by mildly inflammatory Instagram posts that equate the negative impact of an individual who drives a car with companies that cause oil spills.