{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021362586605080832, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005773672055427252, 'mean_word_length': 5.743190661478599, '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}}
New Urbanism, Pedestrianism, and Inner-City Charlotte Neighborhoods

New Urbanism is a design approach to land planning that advocates a revival of classical and vernacular urban form as an alternative to conventional post-World War II suburban planning. Proponents of New Urbanism argue that this planning genre creates a greater sense of community and social interaction through the redesign of streetscapes and livable public places. In practical terms, New Urbanists use design elements to construct a sanitized urban landscape. Middle-class consumers are attracted to New Urbanism as a modern reincarnation of community juxtaposed with a simulated historical or culturally significant urban place. Visual images and constructed marketing narratives link New Urbanist developments to trendy antecedents like Charleston, Savannah, Williamsburg, and Old Salem (NC). Pedestrian-friendly land use patterns are at the center of this movement. Indeed, New Urbanists claim that pedestrian friendliness is a key difference between modern suburban land development and earlier community-centered land planning. New Urbanism is historiocentric—i.e., the older the neighborhood, the better the neighborhood. This paper examines pedestrian orientation of 73 neighborhoods in central Charlotte. These study areas were developed between 1860 and post-1962. The research finds that older neighborhoods do exhibit pedestrian orientation, but that age alone does not singularly explain walkability. Indeed, the strongest pedestrian neighborhoods are public housing communities. As a commercial product New Urbanist communities carefully identify their historical templates. Accordingly, reference to low income neighborhoods is not acknowledged.