How can cities make housing more affordable as they grow? Not by counting apartments alone. Affordability depends on whether homes are connected to transit and jobs, whether land-use rules permit enough housing, whether public and private partners share risk, and whether residents can remain in place as neighborhoods change. A durable strategy combines those decisions with climate, water and quality-of-life planning.
Michael Johnson, a SmithGroup vice president and urban design leader, captures the scale of the task: “There’s no effective way to meet affordable housing needs one project at a time.” The examples of Ann Arbor, Rochester, San Francisco and Las Vegas show how coordinated policy can turn that principle into practice, while also exposing the trade-offs planners must manage.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Why housing affordability is an urban systems problem
The question “Will people be able to afford what it will cost to live in our increasingly urban future?” is becoming more urgent as population concentrates in cities. SmithGroup’s January 9, 2026 perspective says more than half of the world’s population already lived in cities and cites a Bloomberg-linked projection that 85–90% could live in cities by 2080. That projection is presented here as reported by SmithGroup; its underlying publication year is not stated.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Housing costs are already straining household budgets in the United States. SmithGroup, citing Pew Research, reports that roughly one-third of American households spent more than 30% of income on rent and mortgage payments in 2023, the conventional threshold for being housing cost burdened. It also cites Bankrate’s latest report as finding that more than 75% of homes were unaffordable for a typical household, although the article does not state that report’s publication year. A nationwide survey cited in the same perspective found that nearly three in four Americans believed affordability had worsened in their communities, while close to half were moderately or extremely concerned about their own ability to afford housing.
#1 Best Overall
Those figures describe a problem larger than construction volume. A home can be nominally affordable yet unaffordable to reach if a household must own a car, or vulnerable to displacement if nearby investment raises rents. A project can conserve energy but increase water demand, or add units without providing schools, parks and daily services. Effective policy therefore links five decisions:
- Land and zoning: where homes may be built, at what density and with what mix of incomes.
- Funding: how cities assemble public land, local revenue, state support and private capital.
- Mobility and access: whether residents can reach work, education, health care and shops without excessive transportation costs.
- Resilience: how buildings and neighborhoods respond to heat, drought, flooding, energy constraints and other hazards.
- Stability: how long affordability lasts and how residents are protected from involuntary displacement.
Each city must set its own priorities, but the four case studies below provide a practical menu of approaches.
Ann Arbor: build support before building units
Ann Arbor demonstrates why a housing strategy needs a durable civic base and a funding mechanism. Fewer than 100 affordable units were built in the city between 2015 and 2020, even as a countywide effort called for substantially more affordability. The shortfall was not solved by simply identifying a preferred building design; the city first had to establish where residents would accept housing and how it would be financed.
Recommended Free Tools
In 2020, Ann Arbor held hybrid in-person and online engagement sessions about housing on seven publicly owned downtown surface parking lots. Discussing public land made the trade-offs tangible: residents could consider what would replace parking, what benefits a project should provide and how a development could fit its surroundings. The process led to passage of a local tax intended to fund housing development.
As described in the January 2026 SmithGroup article, two significant projects were expected in 2026:
- A 90-unit, all-affordable mid-rise in Kerrytown was expected to open.
- A 270-unit, all-electric, net-zero high-rise over the downtown transit center was expected to break ground.
Those were forward-looking statements at the time of publication, not completed outcomes. Their actual opening or groundbreaking status should be checked before being cited as delivered projects. The planning lesson is transferable: sustained engagement can convert contested public land into a community-backed housing program, while a dedicated local revenue source gives the city more control than reliance on one-off grants.
Rochester: use a long-term public-private partnership
Rochester, Minnesota, illustrates a different lever: aligning a major economic institution with state and local government over a long time horizon. Destination Medical Center is described as a 20-year partnership among Mayo Clinic, the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County. The arrangement treats housing, employment growth and downtown infrastructure as connected investments rather than separate departmental projects.
The partnership’s reported outcomes are substantial, although SmithGroup presents them as project figures rather than independently audited results in this context. Mayo’s Bold. Forward. Unbound initiative carried a planned investment of $5 billion and was expected to improve more than 30 downtown blocks. Development efforts had delivered 400,000 square feet of research and innovation space, redeveloped 15 downtown blocks and generated $1.6 billion in new state and local tax revenue. Downtown housing had doubled, primarily near a bus rapid transit connection.
The original 2015 DMC plan forecast demand for 2,850 new residential units by 2035; almost 1,600 had been added when the 2026 article was published. A five-year update prioritized affordable housing for students, seniors and working families. These figures show how transit investment can shape where new homes locate, but they do not prove that the partnership alone caused every economic or housing change. Cities considering a similar model should define responsibilities, public benefits, affordability targets and reporting requirements before construction begins.
San Francisco: align zoning with affordability requirements
San Francisco’s example focuses on the rules that determine how much housing can be built and who benefits from additional density. SmithGroup criticizes policies that favor single-family housing, restrict density or allow developers to pay a fee instead of providing affordable units. Such rules can make projects infeasible in high-demand areas or push growth to locations with weaker transit and fewer services.
Rank #3
The city’s Board of Supervisors approved rezoning ordinances associated with the Family Zoning Plan that could add tens of thousands of units. The plan allows taller, denser buildings along transit and commercial corridors, particularly in western and northern neighborhoods. Concentrating growth where transit and shops already exist can reduce car dependence and make infrastructure investments more efficient.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Under state law, the additional density requires mixed-income housing for projects to receive state funding. That condition links entitlement to a public affordability outcome: a project may gain development capacity, but access to state support depends on including homes for more than the highest-income households. Because the ordinances were described as recently approved in January 2026, their current status and implementing rules should be confirmed before relying on them.
Rezoning is not a complete affordability policy. Higher land values can create pressure to sell or redevelop existing lower-cost homes, and new construction does not automatically prevent displacement. San Francisco’s approach therefore needs anti-displacement protections, enforceable long-term affordability and attention to the total cost of living, including transportation and utilities.
Las Vegas: plan housing, water and mobility together
Las Vegas shows why a citywide framework matters in a hot, dry region. The City of Las Vegas 2050 Plan anticipates 300,000 additional residents over 25 years, while the broader region is projected to grow from two million to three million people. The plan connects that growth to hotter, drier conditions and to decisions about water conservation, transportation and land use.
Research by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, as reported by SmithGroup, found that mid-rise multifamily units are the most efficient housing type for water use. That finding does not make mid-rise buildings universally superior; it gives planners a resource criterion to weigh alongside cost, accessibility, neighborhood fit and transit access. The 2050 approach establishes 16 subareas for implementing citywide goals, allowing local plans to respond to different infrastructure and demographic conditions while retaining a common framework.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Desert Pines in East Las Vegas is described as a public-private partnership under construction. Extensive bilingual engagement shaped a project intended to combine affordable housing with culturally responsive design, educational support, walkable access to green space and mass transit. Those elements matter because affordability includes the time and money required to reach school, work, parks and services, not just the monthly rent.
As with the Ann Arbor projects, “under construction” and planned features should not be treated as proof of final performance. Water savings, access and resident outcomes require measurement after occupancy.
How the four approaches compare
No common cost, performance or affordability metric is supplied for ranking these cities. The table is therefore a decision guide, not a scorecard.
| City | Primary strategy | Evidence or planned scale reported by SmithGroup | Key strength | Questions planners must resolve |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ann Arbor | Resident engagement, public land and local tax funding | Fewer than 100 affordable units built from 2015–2020; 90-unit and 270-unit projects expected in 2026 | Builds civic support and creates a local funding stream | Will projects open as planned, remain affordable and replace lost parking without harming access? |
| Rochester | 20-year public-private economic development partnership | 400,000 square feet of research space, 15 blocks redeveloped, $1.6 billion in new state and local tax revenue reported; downtown housing doubled | Connects jobs, transit and housing over decades | Who receives affordable homes, and how are benefits shared as land values rise? |
| San Francisco | Higher density along transit and commercial corridors with mixed-income conditions | Family Zoning Plan ordinances could add tens of thousands of units | Uses zoning capacity and state funding rules to support mixed incomes | How will the city prevent displacement and enforce long-term affordability? |
| Las Vegas | Citywide growth, water, transportation and neighborhood planning | 300,000 additional residents anticipated over 25 years; 16 implementation subareas | Integrates housing with drought resilience and daily access | Can projects meet water and heat constraints while staying affordable? |
A practical planning sequence for affordable growth
Municipalities can adapt the case studies into a repeatable sequence. The order matters because later commitments depend on earlier legitimacy and feasibility.
- Map need and cost burden. Identify renter and homeowner cost burdens, income bands, household types and locations where transportation costs compound housing costs. Publish the assumptions so residents can challenge or improve them.
- Engage before selecting a project. Use in-person and online sessions, provide translations and accessible materials, and discuss real sites rather than abstract unit targets. Record what residents support, oppose and want changed.
- Assemble land and recurring funding. Public parking lots, underused public parcels and institutional land can reduce acquisition costs. A dedicated local tax or comparable recurring source can support predevelopment, construction and preservation instead of relying on a single grant cycle.
- Set zoning and affordability rules together. Allow enough density near transit and commercial corridors to support homes and services. Tie added development capacity or public funding to defined mixed-income and long-term affordability requirements.
- Formalize partnership obligations. Agreements with employers, health systems, counties or private developers should specify contributions, milestones, public benefits, affordability periods, data reporting and remedies for nonperformance.
- Design for access and resilience. Evaluate transit, walking routes, schools, parks, heat, energy and water at the neighborhood scale. In water-constrained regions, compare housing types using local utility evidence rather than assuming that a familiar form is efficient.
- Monitor after occupancy. Track rents and sales by income band, displacement indicators, transit use, utility consumption, vacancy, maintenance and resident satisfaction. Publish results and adjust zoning, subsidies or services when outcomes diverge from commitments.
Common failure modes and how to avoid them
Counting units without measuring affordability duration
A building can meet an opening-day target and become unaffordable when a restriction expires or operating costs rise. Specify the affordability term, income limits, renewal rules and funding for preservation before celebrating production.
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Engaging residents after the key decisions
Late consultation tends to produce opposition rather than useful design input. Ann Arbor’s experience shows the value of discussing public sites and funding early, when residents can still influence the program.
Adding density without displacement protection
Transit-oriented rezoning can increase land values. Pair new capacity with tenant protections, preservation of existing affordable homes, right-to-return policies where appropriate and transparent monitoring of rent and household changes.
Separating housing from transportation and utilities
Remote, inexpensive land may create high commuting costs and require expensive infrastructure. Conversely, a transit-rich site can fail if heat, water or energy systems are inadequate. Review capital and operating costs together.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchAssuming a partnership guarantees equitable outcomes
Large investments can generate tax revenue and jobs while leaving lower-income residents behind. Public agreements need explicit beneficiary groups, affordable-unit production, local hiring or service commitments where relevant, and public reporting.
What success should look like
A credible affordable-housing program reports more than permits issued. At minimum, residents and decision-makers should be able to see:
- Homes delivered and preserved by income level, tenure and affordability term.
- Household transportation costs and travel times to major daily destinations.
- Changes in displacement risk, eviction, rent burden and resident turnover.
- Access to transit, schools, health services, parks and retail within practical walking or transit distances.
- Energy and water performance measured in occupied buildings, not only modeled at design stage.
- Public and private contributions, tax revenues, operating subsidies and lifecycle maintenance obligations.
- Whether promised community benefits were delivered and whether residents helped govern adjustments.
The four cities do not offer a single blueprint. Ann Arbor emphasizes legitimacy and local control; Rochester demonstrates the reach of a sustained institutional partnership; San Francisco uses zoning and state funding leverage; Las Vegas embeds housing in a resource-constrained regional plan. Together they support a clear conclusion: affordable urban housing is a continuing civic and infrastructure program, not a one-time construction count. Cities that align land, money, mobility, resilience and resident voice have a better chance of keeping homes attainable as growth continues.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
