In the UK the relationship between architecture was working out nicely when I was younger. My impression is that when architects lost a chunk of their workload to project managers and other specialist consultants they responded by grabbing work from wherever they could get it and regardless of their experience in the type of work. Other landscape architects, not in the UK, sadly, have done well by winning open competitions (often under the banner of landscape urbanism).

This is really not a sensible distinction. Jane Jacobs did not have a position on climate change or the effect of suburban sprawl on land availability or green belts, unless I am much mistaken.

It seems to me that many of the theories of new urbanism are adopted because it makes development cheaper and profits higher. (ie less infrastructure provision and more dwellings per hectare). So quite simply much of it is $ in a green dress!

There are sometimes very good reasons for building in particular ways in particular locations – but please consult the genius of place first and apply any theory with the appropriate level of rigour.