{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02763819095477387, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033500837520938024, 'mean_word_length': 5.9476744186046515, '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}}
Suburban gentrification? Examining the geographies of New Urbanism in Atlanta’s inner suburbs

ABSTRACT Since the 1990s, Atlanta’s inner suburbs have experienced rising rates of poverty alongside growing racial/ethnic diversity. Meanwhile, on the built landscape, high-end (re)development projects incorporating New Urbanist features such as pedestrian accessibility, compact densities, and mixed land uses have become increasingly common. Although practitioners suggest that these developments promote social inclusivity and enhanced “livability,” individual cases suggest that some New Urbanist projects may be gentrifying underserved communities of color. This paper tests the extent of this concern by examining Atlanta's inner-suburban geographies of New Urbanism using a logit model. Results indicate that neighborhoods with older housing stock, more renters, lower incomes, lower rents relative to home prices, and higher Latino populations in close proximity to inner-suburban downtowns are most likely to be targeted for New Urbanist (re)development. Thus, despite the optimistic language, New Urbanism in this region appears to be serving as the inner-suburban face of gentrification.