Such tactics were tried with bussing and desegregation in the school system.
While I don't necessarily oppose efforts to help people out, particularly low income people, with affordable housing solutions, and while I don't think such solutions should isolate them (per se) to locations on "the other side of the track" - as in creating more ghettos or the like, the notion that we need somehow to force disparate groups, disparate by their income, color, race, interests or whatever to live together to achieve someone's idea of "blended harmony" with one another is a distinctly odious principle - punishing all groups in the end.
That's my issue with this stuff - someone's subjective notion of what an "ideal" community "should" look like driving policies that force the community to look like that - forgetting that individuals with all manner of differences, be it race, religion, economic status, ability, age, national origin, values, etc. that drive their wants and wishes and the decisions they make about how to live their lives are artificially affected by an anonymous someone (usually a bureaucrat) with too much time on their hands and an inbred belief that they know better than anyone else how people ought to live.
That's their utopian view. My utopian view is a world spared of busybody bureaucrats who cannot help butting into other people's business.
"Uniform diversity" is a pipe dream, in other words, with ramifications that usually end up as damaging unintended consequences to all parties. Bureaucrats can come up with all manner of pollyanic ideas - what they are never able to dream up along with those ideas are the unintended consequences attendant with virtually all of them.
