It isn't a simple matter of "paying people" to get them out of their homes. You have to force them out via eminent domain. And not only that, rewrite your laws to extend the powers of eminent domain well beyond their current scope -- which in most jurisdictions almost certainly do not cover the scale of forced redevelopment and mass evictions you are imagining.
You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas
These neighborhoods aren't "nondescript" to people who have been living there for generations. And your apparent obliviousness to this central fact goes to the heart of the matter of why redevelopment politics are so contentious in many cities.
> It isn't a simple matter of "paying people" to get them out of their homes. You have to force them out via eminent domain.
Nonsense.
If zoning was changed so large housing buildings became legal, existing home owners in prime locations could become very rich selling to skyscraper developers. Or even build tall buildings of their own.
All experience indicates that people with a chance to become very rich will take that chance.
But the simple fact is, this idea you apparently have -- that a developer can deterministically "buy people" out of their property (or rental status), even assuming that that it had adequate capital on hand -- is just not how this stuff works.
You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas
These neighborhoods aren't "nondescript" to people who have been living there for generations. And your apparent obliviousness to this central fact goes to the heart of the matter of why redevelopment politics are so contentious in many cities.