This dissertation is an in-depth analysis of the politics and practices of implementing zoning reform for redevelopment in Downtown Los Angeles. It focuses on the tensions between imperatives for economic growth, housing production, and equitable development. More specifically, it examines how three historically marginalized communities mobilize in response to public-private planning tools that seek to attract private real estate development to generate public benefits. The DTLA 2040 community plan update is the contested site of the City’s first implementation of its newly modernized zoning code framework (Re:Code L.A.). This planning process unfolds in the institutional context of adapting the role of city governance to generate economic development through a system of public-private partnerships. This institutional apparatus seeks to facilitate streamlined development processes advanced by a unified vision for the city and downtown. However, the vision of collective economic interests becomes complicated and challenged by the existing social and spatial inequality highlighted in the neighborhoods of Chinatown, Little Tokyo, and Skid Row. In particular, the controversial boundaries of Skid Row and the largest population of unhoused individuals in the city become a battleground over displacement and the right to the city. Zoning is at the center of this conflict, a tool that historically created or reinforced racial segregation in the U.S. and one that continues to reproduce social and economic inequality. Zoning innovations and reform are increasingly promoted across U.S. cities, which claim to correct past mistakes and achieve more equitable urban development. However, zoning is also increasingly entangled with financial interests and speculative real estate development. These tools are intended to create predictability to incentivize private development and ‘value-capture’ that will produce public benefits, yet their success is contingent on several factors, including a strong market for development, willingness of developers, as well as political support and community power. Therefore, the liberalization of zoning can exacerbate unequal local power dynamics and shift decision-making power to private interests. The planning literature is split on the potential for these reforms to achieve both growth and equity. Critiques of political economy argue that capitalist urban development is fundamentally unable to create equitable outcomes. On the other hand, proponents of communicative planning rationality suggest that just processes will yield just outcomes. Insurgent planning research and practice takes a more nuanced approach to community empowerment that works both within and around institutionalized planning processes. However, the promise of insurgent planning is constantly challenged by the global trend towards depoliticized governance mechanisms discussed in the post-political literature. The dissertation utilizes an ethnographic case study approach to gain deeper insight into these questions and gaps. Qualitative interviews and document analysis are used to examine the case of DTLA 2040 through the process of implementing the new zoning tools and public-private value-capture. Ethnographic participant-observation within two opposing coalitions analyzes how these tools are subsequently contested and negotiated between the respective pro-growth and pro-equity positions. The three papers present zoning reform as a site of political struggle where conflicting visions of the city’s future are negotiated. The first paper explores the negotiation of (in)equitable urban development in Downtown Los Angeles, through zoning for value-capture, which constrains the potential for community benefits within the parameters of real estate financial feasibility. The second and third papers focus more specifically on the contested boundaries of the Skid Row community and the political power of controlling visibility and invisibility.Together, these three in-depth studies provide a comprehensive analysis of the social, political, and spatial consequences of implementing zoning reform in diverse communities with deeply embedded inequalities. The research contributes to the literature on planning theory and practice, critical geography, and urban sociology by explaining detailed mechanisms of how public-private planning tools can reproduce existing inequalities. However, the research also demonstrates how these tools can be leveraged by politically mobilized community coalitions, to push the boundaries of possibility for spatial justice within the parameters of capitalist urban development and real estate speculation. The findings have broader implications for understanding the role of social movements and progressive planning practices in re-politicizing neoliberal urban governance to promote more equitable cities.