One of the problems with the term "transit-oriented development"

is that people feel like it's something that's being done to them. Rather than them realizing it's merely a repackaging (or rebranding) of the kind of compact development that was done during the time of the walking and transit city eras of center city development.

I.e., it's no different than this...

Cy Paumier writes in Creating a Vibrant City Center that the pattern of downtowns (central business districts) developed around pedestrian-scaled streets, blocks, and buildings because of:

Concentration and Intensity of Use: "The intensity of development in the traditional central area was relatively high due to the value of the land. Maximizing site coverage meant building close to the street, which created a strong sense of spatial enclosure. Although city center development was dense, construction practices limited building height and preserved a human scale. The consistency in building height and massing reinforced the pedestrian scale of streets, as well as the city center's architectural harmony and visual coherence." (p. 11)

Organizing Structure: "A grid street system, involving the simplest approach to surveying, subdividing, and selling land, created a well-defined, organized, and understandable spatial structure for the cities' architecture and overall development. Because the street provided the main access to the consumer market, competition for street frontage was keen. Development parcels were normally much deeper than they were wide, creating a pattern of relatively narrow building fronts that provided variety and articulation in each block and continuous activity on the street." (p. 12)

The street grid, transportation practices and construction technology of the times, and the cost and value of the land led to a particular form of development on city blocks that focused attention on the streets and sidewalks, creating a human-scaled, architecturally harmonious built environment.

As construction technology advanced and taller buildings could be constructed, and as the walking and transit city was supplanted by the automobile, the scale of block development changed significantly, with a focus away from the pedestrian and towards the car.

OTOH, because TOD proponents are usually working on greenfield sites or grayfield site adaptations, it doesn't have the same kind of antecedents as the type of development described by Cy Paumier as typifying the development of downtown and the close-in neighborhoods near to downtowns.

And note, the report-publication produced by Karina Ricks back in 2002 when she worked for the Office of Planning, Trans-Formation: Recreating Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Centers in Washington, DC, is really quite good. Frankly, it's one of the best descriptions that I've seen lately of how to (re)do infill development and build stronger neighborhoods. (I never really worked through the tome when it came out because I wasn't working very much on transit issues then.)