I came across this article online touting the vision for Neo-traditional/"new urbanism" planning in a number of towns along the Gulf coast that were devastated by Katrina.

I may not have mentioned it but I have a Master's degree in Urban Planning & Policy and this "Neo-Trad" development idea was the predominant model for transportation and housing design when I was in school, and it continues to have a strong following among planners, architects, developers, and local governments today.

I nearly laughed out loud when I read the following quote from the dean of Tulane's School of Architecture:

"This is a very conservative, very waspy ideology," said Reed Kroloff, dean of the Tulane University School of Architecture and head of a New Orleans rebuilding committee. "There's no doubt that a fair amount of New Urbanist principles have found their way into the embrace of the American right. ... They call themselves neo-traditionalists. Neo-traditionalists and neo-conservatives make a very happy marriage."

My experience with Neo-trad proponents is that many of the professors I had were practically socialists in terms of their personal politics and vision for community. When the key elements of such a plan include:

• persons of mixed income living next door to one another (i.e. - certain percentage of housing units reserved for section 8 housing right there in the neighborhood as opposed to the "old school" method of shuffling/segregating the poor into warehouses (housing projects) or slums)
• preservation of land/open space to promote cleaner air and water
• layout of commercial services (shopping, etc.) within walking distance of housing, further fostering a sense of "community"
• overall layout conducive to pedestrian and public transit traffic; significantly less dependence by residence upon cars (obviously a huge benfit for those who can't afford cars.)

Yeah, those sound like inherently "neo-con" ideas to me (insert sarcastic smirk here.)

Granted, the money and time just may not be available to these Gulf cities to start from scratch with a neo-trad layout. And that is really a shame, because it could truly be a boon to persons across the socio-economic spectrum who deserve not only improvement upon the existing devastation but the promise of a more inclusive, vibrant, welcoming hometown to call their own.

Although well-intended, the money and time needed to execute such development just may not exist in many of the towns affected. This is an enormous tragedy unto itself - just read the many articles and blogs that tell how bad things STILL are and how in some towns things are getting worse these many months post-Katrina.

But to call someone offering VISION - upbeat and perhaps a bit idealistic/unrealistic, but a VISION, nonetheless -  "waspy" and "neo-conservative" - to me that is utterly preposterous. Its a classic example of a party pooper; someone draining the spirit and energy from a region that so desperately needs it.

To me, the ultimate "neo-con" or just plain old "con" idea of planning consists of gated communites for the rich and gated housing projects for the poor - and never the two shall meet. The rich can get in their SUV's and haul off to some luxury mall or organic grocery store. The poor shop at...well the neo-con's don't care where they spend their food stamps. As long as it ain't in THEIR neighborhood.

I wish I could offer grants from philanthropic pockets to communities who realize that in the past, there were blighted areas, slums, and a dispartiy among the populace and now, amidst the devastation of a natural disaster, something POSITIVE can be done to improve the lives of all residents and business owners. That through careful, creative and equitable planning and development, the South can "rise again" so to speak.

Idealistic, unrealistic, not what everyone wants? Yes, likely. Neo-con? Hardly.