How the Trump Presidency Could Impact Urban Planning

An analysis of potential changes in federal housing, transportation, and climate policies.

21 minute read

January 19, 2025, 5:00 AM PST

By Planetizen

Front of White House with stormy sky above.

Bill Chizek / Adobe Stock

President-elect Donald Trump has promised big changes across the federal government in his second term. His priorities, his appointed administration officials, and a Republican-led Senate and House of Representatives could mean huge changes for the policy and funding issues that matter most to planners and the communities they serve. To give you the lay of the land going into this new administration, we’re going to break down the knowns and unknowns across three categories vital to planners: housing, transportation, and climate.

Housing supply and affordability

Although a significant number of voters say housing was one of their top issues heading into the voting booth, housing supply — particularly housing that is affordable to middle- and low-income households — will likely continue to be a major problem nationwide under a Trump administration. Trump has floated the four policy proposals below to address housing costs and scarcity, but they are unlikely to move the needle in a significant way over the next four years; indeed, some economists say they might actually exacerbate the problem.

  1. Opening federal lands for construction to increase housing supply is a solution floated both by Trump and Kamala Harris on the campaign trail. In July, Biden called on federal agencies “to assess surplus federal land that can be repurposed to build more affordable housing across the country.” But surplus federal lands typically aren’t located in the large urban areas where new housing is needed, so it’s not clear if this would have an impact. Moreover, building housing on previously undeveloped sites means the added cost of new infrastructure such as roads, water pipes, and power lines.
  2. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to bring down interest rates and in turn, mortgage prices. During his first term, he unsuccessfully pressured the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. In a second term, he may be constrained by the same factors: The Fed is an independent entity and not subject to the bidding of the president, though some expect the current Fed Chair Powell could be replaced (and any new chair would be subject to Senate confirmation); Trump’s proposed tariffs and deportation of undocumented immigrants would likely increase inflation by making both raw materials and labor more expensive — most likely prompting the Fed to raise interest rates.
  3. President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance have floated their proposed mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as a solution to free up housing supply and lower housing prices. Setting aside the human rights issue with tearing people away from their families and communities, mass deportation is guaranteed to disrupt the construction labor market, 30 percent of which is made up of immigrants, according to the National Immigration Forum, which also claims that the industry needed to add half a million new workers in 2024 alone to meet new demand. Factoring in the potential for mass deportations in 2025 and associated delays in restaffing, or a sustained inability to find cost-efficient labor due to a lack of immigrant workers, we can likely expect to see the cost of construction rise significantly over Trump’s term, translating to fewer new homes, and higher costs for would-be homeowners. However, the argument upon which Trump’s deportation plan is in part built on is that by carrying out his proposed mass deportations, the cost of housing will become cheaper overall. That's because housing units aren't like jobs. If you deport someone working at Target, you're freeing up that job, but removing an entire consumer from the market, damaging the economy overall and reducing the number of jobs available thanks to economic shrinkage. But unlike their jobs, the deported person’s housing remains, even if the economy crashes in the process — a small consolation prize for Americans looking for relief from high housing costs.
  4. One policy that could positively impact the number and frequency of new homes being built is Trump’s support of deregulation. There is a lot of red tape around building homes, something which often extends building timelines and therefore the overall cost of construction. While state and local governments control the majority of regulations around housing construction, the federal government has control over some, including energy efficiency requirements, Clean Water Act regulations, and building codes for FHA borrowers’ homes, all of which could be loosened or streamlined. 

These are the knowns — or at least the most logical, easily predictable effects of Trump’s core policies for housing in America. There remain, however, the unknowns. Were Project 2025 to be implemented, a second Trump administration is likely to be far more efficient at achieving its goals than the first.

There’s been much debate as to Trump’s real support of the policies outlined in Project 2025. However, given the most recent spate of picks for Trump’s administration, Project 2025 appears much closer to the President’s true agenda than his attempts to distance himself from it would otherwise suggest. Most notably, the President-elect’s public vetting of former Trump administration regular and Project 2025 architect, Russ Vought, for the White House Budget Office serves as an indicator that Trump’s claims to “have no idea who is behind it” hold little water. 

The Project 2025 of it all

We recommend watching our full video on Project 2025 and its potential impact on housing, but here are some of its key policies that could be enacted in America’s near future:

  1. Overhauling the Department of Housing & Urban Development (or HUD). Replacing the “top tier of federal housing officials” with politically aligned appointees who are motivated to dismantle progressive and equity-focused policies.
  2. Excluding noncitizens from federally assisted Housing. Both documented and undocumented immigrants, as well as their U.S.-born children could be excluded from what often serves as a critical lifeline for struggling families.
  3. Repealing the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Regulation. This move would dismantle protections that ensure fair access to federally funded or subsidized housing for women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, disabled individuals, veterans, and other protected groups.
  4. Enacting time limits and work requirements for public housing and “reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs” — in other words, favoring those who are in traditional, cis-gendered, straight marriages over others in the selection process for public housing.
  5. Eliminate the New Housing Supply Fund, which provides resources to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and nonprofit affordable housing organizations to increase the supply of affordable homes and expand housing options for renters and homeowners. 
  6. Selling off existing public housing stock. This could lead to a significant reduction in the availability of affordable housing, especially in urban areas where land is at a premium, amplifying the most painful effects of the policies previously outlined.

Transportation

When it comes to transportation, federal priorities will shift quite significantly under a second Trump administration. Where Biden and the U.S. Department of Transportation prioritized intercity rail, reducing traffic deaths, low- and no-emission vehicles, and equitable transit, Trump has favored personal transportation modes, road investment, and gas-powered cars and trucks.

The good news for planners is that most transportation projects are planned at the state and local level, and on Election Day 2024, voters showed up in favor of funding transportation. Eighteen of the 25 transportation-related funding measures across the country passed. All told, voters approved more than $50 billion in new revenue for transportation infrastructure, about half of which will go to public transit, including the creation of two major bus rapid transit systems: one in Nashville, Tennessee and another in Columbus, Ohio. Additionally, Metro Phoenix just approved a brand new freeway funded by a half-cent sales tax, a big win for transit advocates in an area that went to Trump and a phenomenon surprisingly common in this most recent election.

That said, many local transportation projects depend on federal funding to round out their funding packages. Federal grants are awarded at the discretion of USDOT, subject to the priorities of the current presidential administration. If we take our cues from the types of grants awarded to local projects when Trump was last in office, an analysis from the Urban Institute estimates that over the next four years, the USDOT’s funding priorities under Trump’s second term will likely swing back to road projects in rural, majority White communities and away from projects that promote cleaner, more equitable transportation modes in historically underinvested communities, which had been a key focus of the Biden administration.

Zooming out to a national level, how concerned should planners be? Not as much as you might think, according to Beth Osborne of Transportation for America. She recently told Bloomberg: “The world's going to get plenty dark, but transportation is not going to suffer the brunt of it.” She doesn’t think the Trump administration will be able to make much headway in gutting non-auto transit modes and making a strong push for highway expansion, largely because “U.S. transportation funding is relatively fixed [because of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the rules of the Highway Trust Fund], which makes it less subject to annual appropriations or political turnover.” In other words, the Trump administration can rail against transit, walking, and biking in the public forum, but likely won’t be able to do as much as they would like in concrete policy terms to undo the investments of the last several years.

Rail

Another question on a lot of transportation planners’ minds is how the new Trump administration will impact high-speed rail, particularly long-distance services outside the Northeast Corridor. Under the Biden administration and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), passenger rail projects gained momentum nationwide, including the Brightline West project to connect Las Vegas and Southern California, which received a $3 billion grant from the Federal Railroad Administration, and a new Amtrak service between the Twin Cities and Chicago. Just a week before the election, the FRA announced another $2.4 billion grant package through its Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program that would fund 122 projects in more than 40 states, including 12 in California.

The incoming president has a history of cutting federal funding for rail. In 2017, during his first administration, he slashed the USDOT budget by 13 percent, eliminating funding for Amtrak’s long-distance routes. In 2019, the Trump administration tried to retract a previously awarded $929 million federal grant for California’s bullet train and threatened to cancel another $2.5 billion in federal funds awarded to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Between that, his desire to slash federal spending overall, and Republican Congressional members’ continued scrutiny of Amtrak, experts say fears that high-speed rail funding is at risk are well founded. Rail projects that are already underway, like the B&P tunnel replacement in Baltimore, may avoid cuts because of how far along they are, but endeavors like California’s high-speed rail project that are still in the early stages could be at risk.

In addition to uncertainty around budget cuts, some are concerned about delays in Amtrak and FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) operations during the presidential transition. According to Beth Osborne of Transportation for America, during his last administration, Trump did not staff up the FRA at all. No staff means no decisions being made and no grants being awarded or disbursed. If Trump takes that tack again this time around, the delays will push out rail project timelines and potentially drive up project costs, particularly when paired with any tariffs on foreign materials the Trump administration might impose. 

One approach for rail projects at risk could be to wait out the new administration and hope for more favorable presidential election results in 2028. Another option, like some are calling for in California, is to scale back the projects so they are less dependent upon federal funding.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

But what about Trump’s stated intentions to repeal the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which he has called “excessive spending?” Passed in 2021, the law, also known as the IIJA, is the largest and most comprehensive infrastructure bill in history, authorizing $1.2 trillion for transportation and infrastructure spending. As of November 15, three years into the five-year law, only 47 percent of the IIJA funds were announced, leading to speculation on whether Trump can somehow halt the rest of the funds from being distributed.

It is safe to assume the Trump Administration will conduct a comprehensive review of IIJA and try to roll back portions of the bill he deems excessive. Fortunately experts say that, much like the Inflation Reduction Act, it’s unlikely he will be able to completely defund initiatives carved out in the law including programs like Reconnecting Communities grants (which are meant to help cities address problems related to past infrastructure projects like urban highways) and the Safe Streets and Roads for All program (which funds planning and implementation of street safety improvements). Those programs, along with the bulk of the IIJA, should be safe through 2026 when they are scheduled to sunset. At that point, it remains to be seen whether or not a Republican-controlled Congress will renew them. In the meantime, short of a repeal by Congress, the Trump administration and new USDOT leadership will be limited in the actions they can take to halt the execution of the law.

Highway Trust Fund solvency and the gas tax

Alongside a bevy of other regulations, policies, and projects, the Highway Trust Fund will be up for reauthorization ahead of the midterm elections in 2026. The questions of the day will be how to keep it solvent and at what level will it be funded. The HTF is the largest single source of federal funding for surface transportation, and it’s forecast to become completely insolvent by 2028. Its funding primarily comes from federal gas taxes, but because those haven’t been raised since the 1990s, the Trust Fund has been operating at a deficit for years, unable to keep up with rising costs of building and maintaining surface transportation infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Further complicating the matter, the HTF reauthorization will coincide with the reauthorization of the IIJA, which also provided significant additional investment in surface transportation funding. What approach will the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress take? It’s unclear at this stage, but it will definitely be something to keep an eye on.

Once again, we return our focus to the possibility of the Trump administration’s hard-liners getting their way through the actions outlined in Project 2025. With regards to transportation, Project 2025 recommends:

  1. Abolishing all discretionary grants from the USDOT. This would entail passing along all grants to state-level Departments of Transportation as block grants. This change would decrease the ability of the federal government to incentivize projects that align with environmental, community, or equity-focused objectives and give broad leeway to the states to prioritize spending.
  2. Removing federal subsidies for transit spending, making new transit projects untenable.
  3. Halting the use of federal highway dollars for projects like bike lanes and sidewalks, rendering each dollar spent on transportation infrastructure much more likely to lead to another highway lane rather than walkable solutions for the communities that need them.
  4. Transferring control over fuel economy levels to USDOT. These levels have been dictated by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) since 1975 in conjunction with the EPA’s emissions goals. However, Project 2025 states that “Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role.” 
  5. Eliminating policies it considers outside the FHWA’s statutory authority, including equity and Vision Zero — levying major blows to climate and equity-minded transportation professionals and activists.

Environment and climate 

Federal environmental regulations do a lot of heavy lifting. They conserve landscapes, protect the quality of our water and air, ensure the safety of wildlife, and support sustainability and resilience in the face of climate change. President Biden did more to combat climate change than any other president, championing the transition to clean energy, cutting carbon emissions, and conserving public lands. Meanwhile, Trump has promised to roll these policies back. 

Environmental regulations

During Trump’s first term, the administration attempted to cut the EPA’s budget by a third and rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, including repealing a critical part of the Clean Water Act and loosening limits on emissions from power plants and vehicles. He issued Executive Orders curbing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act in order to speed up permits for federal infrastructure projects. His three Supreme Court appointees also overturned the Chevron doctrine, all but gutting the federal government’s ability to enforce environmental protections. Environmental experts expect a Trump-led EPA to take the same approach in a second term.

Shortly after the election results came in, UCLA experts Ann Carlson and Cara Horowitz predicted that if Trump appointees to agencies like the EPA are inexperienced in the federal government, they could fail to conform to basic requirements of environmental law, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, as well as the IRA. They predict that it will fall upon nonprofit environmental groups and states like California to hold the administration accountable through litigation and the courts.

In keeping with this prediction, Trump recently announced his pick for EPA secretary: Lee Zeldin, a Trump loyalist with limited experience regarding climate policy who is well known for his hostility towards the EPA’s regulatory power.  

Public lands

The same goes for policies around public lands. According to an article from Bloomberg, environmental groups are preparing for “copious litigation” in the coming years to hold the line against a second Trump administration’s efforts to open up federal land for fossil fuels and other development. During his previous term, Trump enacted the largest slashing of federal land protections in history when he shrank two national monuments in Utah to open the land up for oil and gas development, something Trump says he will support in his second term. The Trump-Vance campaign’s official Platform 47 states, “President Trump will free up the vast stores of liquid gold on America’s public land for energy development” and “remove all red tape that is leaving oil and natural gas projects stranded.”​​

Electric vehicles and emissions

Trump has promised to roll back Biden-era fuel efficiency standards for gas-powered vehicles and EPA vehicle emissions standards — something he did in 2020 with the Obama-era guidelines and now hopes to do with the Biden’s. In addition to changing EPA vehicle emissions standards, Trump has promised to “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one” of his presidency and has floated the idea of eliminating the federal $7,500 EV tax credit. He has also promised to end all Biden administration incentives to encourage EV development. However, in light of his close relationship with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, it remains to be seen whether Trump will follow through with these steps, which would have a direct and negative impact on Musk’s business interests (however, Tesla’s market dominance could make it well-positioned to weather the losses). To Tesla and other electric vehicle manufacturers, the $7,500 federal EV credit functions like a free point-of-sale discount, one which is roughly equivalent to a 10 percent discount on a Tesla Model S and which serves as a strong motivator for consumers switching from gas to electric.

However, it’s possible that Trump’s plans to ease the rules for autonomous vehicles, as recently reported by  Bloomberg, will be the political tradeoff for his technocratic friends. The subject of autonomous vehicles is one that has, in the past half-decade, crossed the boundary of being perpetually ‘five years away.’ Thus, Trump’s decisions in regard to AVs over the next four years could play a substantial role in defining the future of transit in America. Trump recently signaled his intention to establish a new federal regulatory framework for AVs, something that’s caused much rejoicing amongst industry leaders (most notably Musk, whose company is perhaps the number one beneficiary of a path to mass adoption for AVs).

A federal regulatory framework for AVs would certainly speed up their adoption, but planners and city leadershave voiced a growing number of concerns regarding how this new technology will impact traffic congestion, road safety, and public transit usage. 

Climate change

Given Trump’s promise to gut fuel efficiency standards, vehicle emissions standards, and EV incentives, climate will evidently not be a beneficiary. Under his previous administration, he pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord in 2019, saying the pledges made by the United States imposed an “unfair economic burden on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers.” He announced his intentions to withdraw again after Biden rejoined the accord in 2021, and indicated his goal of boosting fossil-fuel production, which will negatively impact any progress toward emissions reduction that the country made under the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions rose to an all-time high last year, according to the United Nations. Last summer, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its warmest summer on record, with devastating tropical storms battering the Southeast, and nearly half of all people on Earth experiencing dangerously high temperatures on and around July 22, 2024 — to this date, the hottest day in Earth’s history.

While whether or not climate change falls within planners’ professional purview is a common debate, there’s no denying that rising global temperatures are having major impacts on cities and communities nationwide, coastal and otherwise. Planners are on the front lines in terms of preparing for, mitigating, and recovering from events that are exacerbated by warmer temperatures, like intensified storms, wildfires, flooding, extreme heat, drought, and air and water quality crises.

The clean energy transition

One issue unlikely to be impacted too drastically by a second Trump term, believe it or not, is America’s transition to clean energy. Trump is a big fan of fossil fuels, judging by his frequently uttered catchphrase of “Drill baby drill” and criticism of wind turbines and electric cars. Additionally, he has promised to rescind the remaining funding from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contains spending and tax breaks to boost clean energy like solar and wind. But experts say that while the Trump administration might be able to slow down the clean energy transition, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to stop it completely.

According to Reuters, that’s due to several reasons. One: costs for a majority of clean energy technologies are falling fast, making them very competitive. Two: energy companies are under pressure from their customers and investors to deal with climate change, and it has been speculated that oil companies facing the reality of a transforming energy economy have begun to reoptimize their businesses for extracting as much profit as possible from existing oil assets, rather than looking to expand their market share by investing in new oil drilling infrastructure. Three: the $369 billion dollars in subsidies granted to wind, solar, and clean fuel infrastructure the IRA will be nearly impossible to repeal because changing or repealing the IRA would require action from Congress. However, Republican districts have received more than three-quarters of the $268 billion in clean energy investments announced so far, according to the Global Infrastructure Investor Association, making it unlikely that lawmakers will want to eliminate that funding. Eighteen House Republicans signaled as much in August when they sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson asking him to focus on business and market certainty as he considers efforts to change or gut the IRA.

That said, there are a few ways Trump could chip away at the IRA, including repealing certain provisions such as tax credits for clean vehicles and clean fuel, as well as changing how certain programs are administered, including reallocating funds within existing frameworks to prioritize oil and gas infrastructure, rewriting regulations that impact how quickly projects are approved, and emphasizing public-private partnerships. But the broad consensus is that while it may face a few bumps in the road, the IRA is not at risk by and large, and the clean energy transition will continue, if slightly delayed in its progress, under the Trump administration.

In the meantime, Biden has been fighting a rear-guard action to future-proof some of his administration’s policies and priorities against potential rollback by the next Trump administration. For example, a week after the election, Biden’s administration asked the European Union to ensure liquefied natural gas shipments that meet U.S. methane regulations automatically comply with Europe’s standards for imports. Linking U.S. and E.U. methane standards means any future shipments will meet Biden’s methane rule requirements, regardless of whether Trump reverses them. His administration also limited the amount of oil drilling that can take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by opening the lowest amount of acreage it could legally offer for lease under a Trump-era law that required the federal government to hold two lease sales there for fossil fuel drilling.

This said, the progress the federal government has made towards mitigating climate change as a whole is crucially threatened by Trump’s policies. Project 2025 contains even more hardline recommendations for the 47th President’s administration to implement if he so chooses. Berkeley Law segments Project 2025’s climate-focused mandates as follows:

  1. Reform regulations & reduce regulatory burdens. This entails restoring Trump-era executive orders that limited regulations, such as requiring the elimination of two regulations for every new one and restricting agency guidance documents.
  2. Increase roles of policy appointees relative to career staff. Trump can do this by implementing executive orders to reclassify government positions that influence policy, replacing experts with politically aligned appointees, and encouraging these political appointees to oversee high-level positions in agencies like the EPA and central personnel agencies.
  3. Decentralize, privatize, and make bureaucracy more politically responsive. Project 2025 goes so far as to advocate for the transfer of government environmental responsibilities, up to and including nuclear waste disposal, to the private sector in order to increase efficiency and reduce taxpayer burden.
  4. Concentrate decision-making power at the state level while decreasing a state’s ability to create regulations stricter than the federal government. This specifically entails rescinding California's waiver under the Clean Air Act, limiting states’ ability to impose stricter environmental standards than federal rules.
  5. Manufacturing a conservative, and compliant, EPA. In sum, this means decreasing the EPA’s ability to actually enforce anything, while simultaneously changing its staffing makeup to make it more compliant to Trump’s whims.

A nebulous future

While this brings us to the end of our analysis for now, massive unanswered questions remain with regard to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s advisory body, the Department of Government Efficiency. It was recently announced that this non-governmental agency will be getting its own subcommittee headed by Congressperson Marjorie Taylor Greene. Whether the recommendations of this agency, which has promised nebulous but massive and sweeping cuts to government far beyond anything we’ve discussed here (up to and including completely eliminating the Department of Education), are actually implemented by Congress will be a major determinant of the course of the Trump administration, and the future of the American people, their cities, and the people that plan them more broadly.

Most planning decisions are made at the local and state levels, but federal policy and funding can have a major impact on which projects come to fruition. If you’re concerned with how a Trump presidency could impact your community, your best bet is to get engaged in the planning process. Attend public meetings, participate in public engagement efforts for local projects, and volunteer with organizations to advance the urban planning priorities that matter to you. This election proved that a majority of American voters want solutions at the local and state level, and planners are well equipped to deliver on the needs and wants of an electorate wrangling with a desire for change. Over the next four years, the role of planners in their communities and our society as a whole will only grow more crucial.

portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Get top-rated, practical training

Close-up of Donald Shoup during interview.

Legendary Parking Guru Donald Shoup Dies at 86

Urbanists are mourning the loss of a dynamic voice for parking reform and walkable cities.

February 10, 2025 - StreetsBlog NYC

Red 1972 Ford Pinto with black racing stripes on display with man sitting in driver's seat.

Analysis: Cybertruck Fatality Rate Far Exceeds That of Ford Pinto

The Tesla Cybertruck was recalled seven times last year.

February 11, 2025 - Mother Jones

Row of vehicles parked and plugged in at EV charging station.

Federal EV Charging Program Suspended

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program planned to fund the construction of hundreds of EV charging stations across the country.

February 9, 2025 - Wired

People sitting at outdoor tables with green umbrellas in Union Square, San Francisco.

Traditional Retail is Hanging by a Thread. What Now for Cities?

After Kaid Benfield paints a rather grim retail outlook — where even retail bastions like San Diego are going dark — he suggests a series of actions for city leaders and planners.

February 17 - * A Placemaking Journal

Small trees on city sidewlak with glass buildings in background.

Urban Forestry as a Pathway to Equity and Opportunity

Urban forestry job training programs are creating economic opportunities for underrepresented individuals while addressing workforce shortages and advancing tree equity in communities most impacted by environmental disparities.

February 17 - American Forests

Brick "USC University of Southenr California"  sign at entrance to campus

Sustainability Expert Becomes Dean of USC’s School of Public Policy

Chris Boone, a sustainability leader, becomes dean of the USC Price School of Public Policy, where he aims to advance interdisciplinary solutions and sustainability initiatives while building on the school’s legacy of public policy leadership.

February 17 - USC Today

Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools

This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.

Planning for Universal Design

Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.

Write for Planetizen