Indeed, but you can expect the architects and developers to still call themselves progressive urbanists, conveniently leaving the parking crater out of frame in all of their renders.
A major problem, IMO, with mixed-use projects is that developers don't create a good mix of commercial spaces, and city planners don't differentiate. The vast majority of spaces are too big and expensive.
Cookie-cutter isn't necessarily a problem. Though they can look quaint, even most old walkable neighborhoods contain nearly identical assortments of businesses. Most of those businesses require only very small spaces, and could never generate the revenues to pay for larger spaces while competing with big box retailers. You need many small, cheap spaces. Over time you'll eventually start to see a handful of quirky establishments pop up. But if your aim is just for the quirky establishments, setting aside only one or a handful of cheap spaces, with most targeted at chains or otherwise too large and expecting too much rent, what you'll likely end up with is a bunch of vacant commercial spaces and low foot traffic.
Nothing wrong with 5 over 1 buildings, IMO. What's wrong is that the first floor invariably will have N commercial units, all too large, when they could provide 3N or 5N, all significantly cheaper and capable of supporting small proprietors. Moreover, with a larger number and assortment of businesses, that ground floor will begin to look and feel much less cookie-cutter.
But I guess it's probably difficult to raise money using a pitch that features comic book stores and flower shops, rather than one that imagines a CVS or Walgreens as a tenant.
People call themselves all kinds of things. I fail to see why I should disregard good ideas because someone cynically used the same name for a bad thing.