The primary flaw that you find in the film, the filmmakers seeming "unease with urbanism and the synthetic necessities of city life", corresponds directly with my complaint with the film's failure to shine light on our flawed love of and sense of safety attached to excessive outdoor illumination. There has been a great deal of research that poor quality and unnecessary lighting not only wastes ~10% of our electricity production (or like 25% of our coal consumption) while such lighting is in fact counter-productive to it's purposes. Studies not only reveal that people actually feel less safe in over-lit rather than optimally-lit nighttime environments, but also that always on security lighting seems more likely add to crime rather than deter it* as glare and dark shadows actually make it harder to see hiding criminals while it gives them plenty of light to work by.
The film's primary illustrations of nighttime lighting's damage to our health as well as the grave threats it poses to birds and sea turtles should simply be the icing on the unmade argument for human vision based lighting rather than the absurdity we currently live with. The opportunity was lost when Cheney does a ride along and a dark lot is pointed out as possibly hiding criminals, there is a failure to mention that the lot's relative darkness is only a function of human vision's limitations combined with overly bright glare producing street lighting making it impossible to see what might otherwise be perfectly visible. The film affirms the emotional response to how the lighting of an urban neighborhood made residents feel safer without pointing out that the flawed lighting makes that sense of safety merely an illusion.
*The evidence against always on security lighting is dramatic, but the sample sizes are never comprehensive enough. A look at when Florida and California schools stopped lighting their campuses overnight after the 2008 financial collapse induced budget crisis, vandalism dropped by 1/3, in a time with a spike in unemployment.