I don't think there's anything wrong with aesthetically appreciating either one. Fact is, auto-oriented areas are designed by people to be enjoyable to experience from the car just as pedestrian-oriented areas were made to be enjoyable on foot. So it makes sense that they'd both be enjoyable to many people when experienced as intended.
The only issue I have with these type of conversations is the frequent occurrence of aesthetic reductionism. By that I mean that some people seem to reduce the decision of which type of development to choose or support (or to not choose between them) down to being purely a matter of aesthetics, aka personal taste/preference. In reality, while taste and personal preference are certainly things to
consider, the issue also directly relates to many other issues like energy and land usage, personal and societal cost (infrastructure, transportation, etc.), public health, and so on.
People sometimes present it in a similar way to scenarios that really are just a matter of preference like, "Should I choose the grey suit or the navy suit?" assuming that the cost, size/fit, fabric, and overall quality are identical and the only difference is colour. However, when all the other factors are also totally different, the aesthetic colour preference is just one fairly minor consideration among many which one should probably not be overly fixated on. Like great... you like blue and grey equally well. With that decided, we can set that aside and evaluate them based on the other hugely different quantifiable qualities and objectively decide which is better.