The first step is don't do this, central planning is a canonical bad idea. Case in point: NIMBYism works because cities are already masterplanned, "communist-pa

The first step is don't do this, central planning is a canonical bad idea. Case in point: NIMBYism works because cities are already masterplanned, "communist-party-style". American suburbia is commie blocks. So all you have to do when someone wants to change the plan is to have two or three people shout "no" at the city council and for nobody else to show up. If you actually want higher-density, what you actually want is national or state laws that restrict what zoning can restrict. Japan is a good model for this: they have a nationalized zoning plan. Individual city councils can only pick specific zones from a list of varying densities of mixed commercial/residential zones and industrial zones. A lot of the harms of suburban life are specific to the segregation of commercial and residential: moving people away from the places they want to go to means they need a car, and the infrastructure to use it with, which takes up space, which pushes everything else away, which creates more demand for cars and car infrastructure, and so on. Conversely, we could imagine, say, taking a few lots in an otherwise single-family development and turning them into convenience stores or something, which would be something people could just walk to. Once you have the legal capacity to build you can then start talking about having government money go into buying and developing upzoned property. Private ownership and developers will follow. The goal is not to bring about some specific master plan but to just generally increase access to land and housing. You can run it as a co-op if you want but do not, for the love of god, micromanage people into wishing they had their $500k mortgaged single-family homes that they """owned""" back.