I come from the hippie era that disdained cities and glorified carrots and goats. Not that I've raised carrots or goats myself, but I've kept a residual sense of contempt for high-rises, parking meters, and all the noise.
We did almost go the full rural route early on, and it hovered in the conversation until the mid-80's, but we eventually settled into a largely small-town/suburban lifestyle. We talk about whether moving back into the city would be reasonable for retirement, but there's a lot not to like about it. It depends on where and how, I suppose.
Thus it is with some reluctance that I am convinced by the argument that urbanisation in a country is a good thing, and that absent artificial encouragements by government (such as mortgage deductions, agri subsidies, grants and programs that prop up marginal endeavors), the natural flow of youth and talent is to cities, and that's a good thing. Less ecological disruption, efficiencies of scale, etc.
Note that in these discussions, it is often unclear whether edge cities are considered as part of the discussion or not, and that single factor changes nearly everything. Researchers whose conclusions seem planets apart might actually be in essential agreement, and arguments that have escalated to threat level might be about details.
Also left vague is what sort of countries urbanisation is good for: All of them? Third World? Free Market?
With that in mind, note that Japanese cities continue to prosper despite the birth dearth and the yearly predictions that the whole country is going to collapse. There are places in the provinces that are collapsing - and the pictures are a touch disquieting - but the Japanese don't seem to mind all that much.
It raises very interesting questions about what a "good" economy is. GDP is a measure of growth and fluidity, but may not capture the idea of stable wealth in a community, nor the technological improvements we all share but look like 0% growth.