Yes, Now what about new urbanism?

Now What? asks James Howard Kunstler:

Let me tell you something: this problem is not going away. At the very least it is going to paralyze the real estate industry for as far ahead as anyone can see. For another thing, it could force the disclosure of what the banks are holding in their vaults in the way of worthless paper and expose their insolvency. For still another thing, it could lead to rafts of lawsuits that would additionally shove the banks toward collapse, demolish the claims that underlie our currency, call into question the meaning of property ownership per se that is the basis of Anglo-American law, and tie up the court system until kingdom come.

Kunstler is generally too overheated and, while a poet of despair, doesn't offer practical solutions. (Of course it is true that there aren't many practical solutions if you have a nation which would even consider Sarah Palin as President.) Like Vaclav Havel (prior post) KUnstler thinks that the location of the parking lot is a question of morality.

But Kunstler does offer an interesting thought: With so little real estate development, what happens now with new urbanism? Which has become part of the US development industry? With little new development, there will be less political pressure at the local level to embark on planning and charrettes. Less demand for architects and planners means fewer teachers of new urbanism etc etc etc Except for the new urbanist stars, or projects like Qatar's Chelsea Barracks, what happens to the yeoman architects, planners, builders? They all become writers? Since I am part of the problem, I am curious.