{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015197568389057751, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008105369807497468, 'mean_word_length': 5.136645962732919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath

Abstract The federal urban renewal program created by Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 fell short of expectations and spawned an army of critics. Originally the program had promised a great deal to a variety of interests, but it could not accommodate all of its early supporters. Social reformers and low‐rent housing advocates were among the first backers who found it wanting. By the early 1960s, the foes of big government and critics of prevailing planning orthodoxies were exploiting the program's shortcomings to further their own agendas. The impact of urban renewal, however, was never as great as some observers assumed, and its physical legacy was limited. Yet its record did influence later federal revitalization programs that granted local authorities greater flexibility and emphasized rehabilitation and the urban context. Moreover, it called into question the efficacy of planning panaceas and federal dollars in solving urban problems.