I am growing concerned that not all of us use the word urbanist/urbanism in the same way.

We've invented a term that effectively means "city fetishist" while not coming to a consensus on what a just/fair/good city looks like. Which is fine and may (will) be a long debate! I am losing hope that the term is helpful in resolving these conflicts though.

I would personally would argue, for instance, that many defensive/hostile architecture products are a negative product of urbanism. That the urban context uniquely form their creation and they are designed to solve perceived misuse in heavily used areas.

In so far as morality or equity, urban centres allow for a greater pooling of resources and the potential to alleviate environmental harm. As for whether or how that occurs, a lot of people called (or calling themselves) urbanists disagree.

I dont even disagree with the intial point that much beyond a pendantic objection to the argument that urbanists as a whe are fighting against stratification when the definition of that term is so large that cannot be true.

I said I would log off and this thread is a clear indicator I've lost my mind. Have a nice night (couple hours before I lose my nerve and check my mentions)