Over the past two decades, the New Urbanism has emerged as a controversial alternative to conventional patterns of urban development. Although growing in popularity, it has received a sceptical reception in journals of planning, architecture and geography. This paper reviews criticisms and finds that much of the critical literature is awed by the use of caricature, inadequate sampling of projects, deŽcient understanding of New Urbanist principles and practices, premature judgments, unreal- istic expectations and ideological bias. While New Urbanists can learn from the critiques of their work, and research gaps need to be Žlled, the New Urbanism remains a resilient, practical and well-founded alternative to conventional land development practices.