lower income, but stable, neighborhoods are concerned about becoming displaced.
St Paul is currently presenting its 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/planning-economic-development/planning/2040-comprehensive-plan
The current plan, as I understand it, is density along "nodes," intersections
that have access to multi modal transportation.
The plan is not to upzone the entire city in order for developers to choose to
build in places they feel it would be desirable. The plan is to upzone certain
areas that the city believes are in need of development.
For people who worry about gentrification, this type of plan has been found to
increase gentrification and decrease equity. A more equitable plan would be
equally upzoning the entire city. ("Running San Francisco" in the June 2 issue
of The Economist is one of many articles that touch on the economics of
restrictive versus broad zoning).
Minneapolis is headed more towards a broad zoning policy, especially with
zoning the entire city for 4-plexes.
I can see pros and cons- I compare to the idea of a family farm and how
corporate farming has priced family farmers out of buying land. Would a
citywide upzoning price first time home buyers out of owning a house in the
city as they could compete with developers for any house? Or does restrictive
zoning artificially increase the value of starter houses in low income
neighborhoods because that is where developers are allowed to develop, thus
buyers of those houses are the people completing with developers? Sources in
favor of citywide upzoning indicate that housing prices may stabilize faster
than they would with more restrictive zoning. They also indicate that rents are
less affected in established apartment complexes than they are with massive
development projects concentrated in one area.