I am puzzled

Why the ongoing undercurrent (that's mild) of hostility to New Urbanism from bloggers I perceive as urbanists to the core? From The Gutter and PIXEL POINTS, for instance? One would think that they should be New Urbanism's loyal (if critical - as am I) supporters.

I can't quite understand why such obviously perceptive people aren't able to separate urban site plan -- which is the core of New Urbanism -- from "architectural style" (the white picket fence criticism at the basest level) which is really somewhat irrelevant to it.

Would they really prefer to have Rem Koolhaas and Frank Gehry -- as opposed to Andres Duany et al -- taking lead roles in helping Mississippians in their rebuilding? Are there annoying things -- a sometimes excess of enthusiasm about NU from young acolytes? Should CNU be chided for naivete for giving an urban design award to Gehry? Is Duany sometimes a bit overly-certain of his position? Of course. And we are all human. But look at the big picture, folks: Who has more to say -- and give me an example, please, if you think otherwise -- about rebuilding Mississippi? Duany or Gehry/Koolhaas? (These names are more stand-ins for ways of looking at the world than real personalities. For all I know Gehry and Koolhaas may indeed have something to offer urbanism -- but they haven't demonstrated it.)

I hope these bloggers will read this and respond as I can understand anti-Seaside design cant from a generalist like Christopher Lydon. But I expect better from The Gutter and especially from Pixel Points. Her suggestion that""New possibilities for sustainability...aren't as easily sketchable as neo-quaint cottages and homey front porches, but they'll give us a lot more to debate" is a sad and disingenuous distortion of New Urbanism.