I think the argument of the urbanists is that land use pattern is designed to accommodate cars. Once that is no longer required (because people no longer need to own cars), there be no reason for the parking lots and driveways and all that, much of the suburbs become wasted space. Not sure if that will be considered an asset, rather, it will be a liability.
Unless you can live in one of the rich suburbs, there's very little "countryside" in the suburbs I know. Traffic yes, noise yes, plus houses are generally not even that far away from each other so all there isn't much privacy. If anything, you're on display more than anything. You arrive at home, and everybody has heard it, and seen it.
But certainly, you might be right. Suppose telecommuting and flex time gets adopted more, absolutely, it's possible the SDC saves the suburb. But the car has ruined city life for more reasons than just creating crappy commutes. The appeal of the suburbs is precisely because city streets being are so wretched due to being giving over to the car. Hence the appeal of a quiet cul-de-sac. Once the city is no longer lined by sewers for high-speed noisy, stinky, dangerous cars, the appeal of the city increases, and the appeal for the suburb correspondingly decreases, that's my bet (and many others' whose view I only parrot here, basically any new urbanist, traditionalist, most under 40 planners)