How Smarter Infrastructure Planning Unlocks Affordable Housing

In our city’s recent effort to rezone a former industrial corridor for mixed-income residential development, we quickly learned that infrastructure planning was not a secondary consideration but a central element of success. The proposed rezoning area lacked adequate stormwater management, suffered from aging water mains, and had no pedestrian-friendly street grid. Early collaboration between our planning department, public works engineers, and housing advocates helped us identify infrastructure upgrades that would not only support new housing but also benefit current residents. By aligning street improvements with the proposed housing density, we were able to secure additional funding from our metropolitan planning organization, which recognized the project’s regional significance.

A key strategy was sequencing infrastructure investments in tandem with rezoning milestones. For example, we scheduled sewer line improvements before permitting multi-family developments, ensuring that capacity would not be exceeded by new residential users. This approach also helped build trust with residents concerned about overdevelopment. We presented detailed phasing maps at community meetings, showing how infrastructure would be built to accommodate growth, not lag behind it. This type of transparency made it easier to gain council support and maintain momentum through the political process.

Building Cross-Departmental Alignment

Our experience showed that infrastructure planning cannot operate in silos, especially when the goal is to produce equitable and affordable housing outcomes. In one instance, our housing staff flagged a potential issue with a proposed site’s connectivity to public transit. While the site was technically within a half-mile of a light rail station, poor sidewalk conditions and a lack of lighting made the walk both unsafe and unpleasant. By looping in our transportation and street design teams early, we were able to integrate sidewalk enhancements and traffic calming measures into the capital improvement plan. This adjustment was modest in cost but critical in ensuring the site met our equity and accessibility standards.

Institutionalizing these kinds of cross-functional responses required more than goodwill. We formalized interdepartmental working groups with recurring meetings, shared tracking dashboards, and clearly defined roles. This structure helped clarify when infrastructure teams needed to lead versus support, especially when housing needs clashed with utility constraints. For instance, water utility representatives helped us identify parcels where system capacity would require costly upgrades, allowing us to prioritize zoning changes in areas with available infrastructure or where enhancements could be bundled with other planned upgrades. This pragmatic coordination saved both time and public resources.

Balancing Regulatory Standards and Community Needs

A recurring challenge in aligning infrastructure work with housing policy is navigating regulatory requirements that don’t always reflect community realities. For example, our local street design standards required curb and gutter construction that significantly drove up the cost of infill development.