Integrated Planning in Action: Building Affordable Housing Along the Transit Corridor

In 2019, our city faced growing pressure to address housing affordability near a transit corridor slated for a major infrastructure upgrade. The initial project plan focused strictly on transportation capacity, emphasizing road widening and intersection redesign. However, during early stakeholder meetings, housing advocates raised concerns that the improvements could unintentionally drive up land values and displace long-term residents. Recognizing the interconnectedness of infrastructure and housing policy, we convened a cross-departmental working group that included transportation planners, housing specialists, zoning officials, and neighborhood representatives.

Through a series of facilitated workshops, the group developed a coordinated strategy that integrated affordable housing incentives into the infrastructure investment plan. Zoning was amended to allow for increased density within a half-mile radius of the upgraded transit stops, with inclusionary housing requirements tied to new development. The transportation department adjusted street designs to incorporate pedestrian safety improvements that aligned with the housing design guidelines. This integrated approach led to the approval of 180 affordable units within the corridor's first development phase, all without displacing existing residents. The success of this initiative stemmed from our ability to break down silos and recognize the shared goals across city functions.

Aligning Departmental Priorities Through Shared Frameworks

One of the most effective strategies we've adopted for aligning priorities across departments has been the use of shared planning frameworks. By grounding our work in adopted comprehensive plans, climate action goals, and equity indicators, we create a common language that helps each department see how their work contributes to broader objectives. For example, when our zoning team proposed reducing parking minimums near transit, transportation staff initially resisted, citing concerns about spillover parking. But once we framed the change within our city’s climate resilience plan and mode shift targets, they became active partners in redesigning curb management policies to support the zoning changes.

Budget alignment is another critical mechanism. In our capital improvement planning process, we now require departments to submit project proposals that identify cross-cutting benefits. Infrastructure projects that demonstrate alignment with housing affordability or racial equity goals receive higher prioritization scores. This has led to more intentional collaboration at the project scoping stage, where housing staff are consulted on infrastructure plans and vice versa. These practices have helped institutionalize a culture of collaboration that is no longer dependent on individual champions but embedded in our planning processes.

Balancing Regulations with Community Needs

Regulatory constraints often pose challenges to implementing innovative housing and infrastructure solutions. For instance, our local subdivision code required street widths that discouraged the compact, walkable block structures preferred by affordable housing developers. Working with our public works department, we reviewed national best practices and conducted traffic modeling to demonstrate that narrower streets could still meet emergency access standards. This led to a revision of our code, allowing for context-sensitive street design in designated affordable housing overlay zones.

We’ve also found that flexibility in implementation can be just as important as changes to formal codes. When a nonprofit developer proposed a mixed-use affordable housing project adjacent to a flood control canal, our infrastructure review team initially flagged the site as unbuildable. Rather than denying the proposal outright, we facilitated a design workshop with engineers, planning staff, and the developer to explore alternative solutions. The result was a reoriented site plan that preserved flood capacity while still allowing for 42 deeply affordable units. This kind of adaptive problem-solving requires staff to be empowered to interpret regulations through a lens of public benefit, which has become a core value in our department’s training and performance systems.

Integrating Resident Feedback Throughout the Process

Community engagement is most impactful when it is sustained over time and tied directly to decision-making. In our recent zoning reform initiative, we launched a multi-phase outreach process that began with listening sessions in neighborhoods most affected by displacement. Rather than presenting pre-formed proposals, we asked residents about their experiences with infrastructure gaps, housing pressures, and mobility barriers. This feedback shaped the initial policy framework and was later used to evaluate draft zoning text, ensuring that community voices were reflected not only in the problem definition but in the solutions.

To maintain trust, it's essential to close the feedback loop. After each phase of engagement, we published summary reports and hosted follow-up meetings to explain how input was used. We also created a community advisory board that meets quarterly to monitor implementation and suggest adjustments. This structure has helped us identify unintended consequences early and make mid-course corrections. For example, feedback from tenants in newly developed housing helped us revise our construction staging regulations to better protect pedestrian access during infrastructure upgrades.

Building Empathy and Adaptability Within City Teams

Over time, I've come to value empathy as much as technical expertise in public infrastructure work. When staff from different departments or perspectives come together, it's easy to default to defending one's own constraints or priorities. But when we start by listening to each other’s challenges and motivations, we often find shared values that can guide compromises. During one interdepartmental retreat, our zoning administrator shared how difficult it was to enforce outdated codes that didn't reflect community needs, while an engineer described the pressure of ensuring safety under shrinking budgets. That conversation led to a new internal policy of collaborative plan review sessions, which have significantly improved project outcomes and staff morale.

Adaptability has also become an essential skill. Policy implementation rarely follows a straight path. Infrastructure timelines shift, funding sources change, and community dynamics evolve. Being willing to revisit earlier assumptions and adjust plans is not a sign of failure but a strength. For instance, when supply chain delays pushed back the delivery of stormwater components for a housing-adjacent greenway, we worked with our parks and recreation team to install temporary landscaping that maintained usable open space. This responsiveness helped preserve community support and kept the broader initiative on track.

Lessons for Practitioners in Infrastructure and Planning

For municipal infrastructure practitioners, the key takeaway is that success in affordable housing and zoning reform depends not only on technical design but on the strength of relationships across departments and with the community. Formal processes like joint scoping meetings and integrated capital planning are important, but so are informal practices like picking up the phone to coordinate across silos or walking a site together with residents. These human connections create the trust necessary to navigate complex trade-offs.

Finally, embedding equity into infrastructure work requires intentionality. It means asking who benefits from a project, who might be harmed, and who has been left out of the conversation. It also means being willing to change course when evidence or feedback suggests a better path. By grounding our infrastructure decisions in community values and shared goals, we’ve been able to build not just physical assets, but also public trust and long-term resilience.

Bibliography

1. American Planning Association. “Zoning Practice: Coordinating Infrastructure and Land Use Planning.” APA Planning Advisory Service, 2020.

2. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Designing Streets for People: Context-Sensitive Solutions. NACTO, 2022.

3. Local Government Commission. “Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker's Guide to Infill Development.” LGC, 2018.

4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Affordability.” HUD User, 2021.

5. Urban Institute. “Aligning Housing and Transportation Policy for Equity.” Urban Institute, 2020.

6. ICMA (International City/County Management Association). “Breaking Down Silos: Integrating Housing, Transportation, and Infrastructure Planning.” ICMA Report, 2021.

7. Smart Growth America. “Infrastructure and Equity: Strategies for Inclusive Growth.” SGA, 2022.