Housing is missing on purpose

From granny flats to townhouses, abundant housing has been zoned away.

Housing is missing in the sense that people can’t find what they’re looking for, but it’s not like there’s some complicated mystery behind it. At the local level, a whole bunch of housing is outlawed. It’s missing on purpose.

Missing middle housing refers to a range of housing types that fall between single-family homes and larger apartment buildings. Duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and small apartment buildings are all “missing middle.” We’re not talking about towering condo skyscrapers. Missing middle housing is the stuff you walk by in most older American cities without even noticing. It blends in with the surroundings.

City planners and urbanists often promote this type of development because it offers more affordable options for a diverse range of households. But city planners and urbanists have also been writing and enforcing land use regulations that outlaw housing variety. As an industry, planning loves to control what you can or can’t do.

Land use zoning for “single-family only" residential has finally gained notoriety because it limits affordable housing options in entire neighborhoods. Builders have no choice but to construct detached homes on large lots with large setbacks from the curb, and spacing requirements between next-door neighbors.

This kind of exclusionary zoning is especially painful for people living in urban areas where land is scarce and expensive.

It’s true that by eliminating single-family zoning and promoting missing middle housing, local governments can promote more inclusive and diverse neighborhoods that offer a range of housing options for all residents. After all, young professionals, empty nesters, divorced parents, and digital nomads have very different life experiences but share an interest in missing middle housing. But this is deeper than a kindness or fairness issue.

The lack of housing is a direct result of regulations that restrict property owners from creating affordable housing.

If you were watching a made-for-TV movie in the 80s, the hero neighbor would convert his garage into an apartment for the lonely widower whose home was foreclosed. But in real life, the planning industry acts like that homeowner is a villain. “What’s next, a paper mill and a strip joint?”

I understand the urge to lean on yes-in-my-backyard as a statement of support for diverse neighborhoods. It signals to people that you’re open-minded and inclusive and want everyone to have a fair shot at a good life. But fairness and opportunity is hard to measure. On the other hand, your shopping options as a home buyer and construction options as a property owner are easy to quantify.

There’s growing momentum in the fight for abundant housing, thanks in large part to self-described YIMBY networks around the country. Through journals, podcasts, and conferences, professional planners are hearing more reminders about their role in the housing mess. And small-scale contractors—good old fashioned neighborhood housing providers—are speaking up on social media about the policy and process barriers to missing middle housing.

If you’re in any of those camps, do whatever you can to keep attention on this issue. We’re not at the cultural tipping point yet. I say this regularly (and I’m right): missing middle housing is findable because it’s a local issue. Sure, it gets national attention from time to time, but local land use and building regulations lock or unlock the types of places people can rent or buy. I’m confident that in our lifetime, Americans will look at the period of housing prohibition as an embarrassing mistake.