|
Daniel Parolek inspired a new movement for housing choice in 2010 when he coined the term “Missing Middle Housing,” a transformative concept that highlights a time-proven and beloved way to provide more housing and more housing choices in sustainable, walkable places. Missing Middle Housing: House-scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods These building types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and courtyard buildings, provide diverse housing options and support locally-serving retail and public transportation options. We call them “Missing” because they have typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s and “Middle” because they sit in the middle of a spectrum between detached single-family homes and mid-rise to high-rise apartment buildings, in terms of form and scale, as well as number of units and often, affordability. In the diagram below, the Missing Middle types are shown in yellow, providing many housing options in between the single-family homes and higher intensity apartment buildings, both shown in white.  And while they are “missing” from our new building stock, these types of buildings from the 1920s and 30s are beloved by many who have lived in them. Ask around, and your aunt may have fond memories of living in a fourplex as a child, or you might remember visiting your grandmother as she grew old in a duplex with neighbors nearby to help her out. And today, young couples, teachers, single, professional women and baby boomers are among those looking for ways to live in a walkable neighborhood, but without the cost and maintenance burden of a detached single-family home. Missing Middle Housing helps solve the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics combined with the growing demand for walkability. We need a greater mix of housing types to meet differing income and generational needs. This is where Missing Middle Housing can change the conversation. — Debra Bassert, National Association of Home Builders  If there’s one thing Americans love, it’s choices: what to eat, where to work, who to vote for. But when it comes where we live or how to get around, our choices can be limited. Many people of all ages would like to live in vibrant neighborhoods, downtowns, and Main Streets—places where jobs and shops lie within walking distance—but right now those places are in short supply. Missing Middle Housing provides more housing choices. And when we have more choices, we create living, thriving neighborhoods for people and businesses. — Lynn Richards, President and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism What does the market want? Demand for Housing Choice A greater variety of household sizes and demographics require a greater variety of housing choices. Young, highly educated, technology-driven millennials desire mobile, walkable lifestyles. They are willing to exchange space for shorter commutes, mixed-use neighborhoods, and shared open spaces that foster community interaction. At the same time, baby boomers are working and living longer. They want to stay mobile and active in their later years, but they won’t drive forever and don’t want to be dependent on their family members to get around. They also want to find ways to stay in their community without having to care for a large home and yard. Multigenerational homes have increased by 17% since 1940, and that number continues to rise. The growing senior population, more families with multiple working parents, diverse family cultures, and an increased desire to live in intergenerational neighborhoods all contribute to the growing demand for multigenerational and even multi-family households. Affluent seniors seek to downsize from their large suburban homes to more convenient, easy-to-care-for townhouses, apartments, or condos, while others need quality, affordable housing that won’t break their limited budget. Many retirees would like to move close to, but not live with, their children and grandchildren. The growing demand for a walkable lifestyle has the potential to transform sprawling suburbs into walkable communities. 90% of available housing in the U.S. is located in a conventional neighborhood of single-family homes, adding up to a 35 million unit housing shortage. Source: Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, “Missing Middle: Demand and Benefits,” Utah Land Use Institute conference, October 21, 2014. Walkable and Accessible Amenities This country is in the middle of a structural shift toward a walkable urban way of living. After 60 years of almost exclusively building a drivable suburban way of life … the consumer is now demanding the other alternative,” wrote Christopher Leinberger in the New York Times article “Car-Free in America? Bottom Line: It’s Cheaper.” By 2025, up to 85% of households will be childless as millennials choose to marry later and have fewer children and the number of empty nester households continues to grow. Housing trends show singles demand more amenities, and women and older persons who live alone generally seek housing options that offer better security. They also drive less, reducing the need for off-street parking in private garages or lots, and increasing the need for accessible public transportation. The present economic research finds that business wants talent, but talent wants place—so more businesses are relocating to places. When drilled further the research finds Missing Middle Housing is the fastest growing preference because it has the ‘place’ quality talent seeks. Hence development of Missing Middle is now recognized as a housing AND economic development strategy. — James Tischler, Michigan State Housing Development Authority The National Association of Realtors, state that, walkability is fast becoming one of the most important factors in choosing where to live. People want of all ages want easy access to amenities such as stores, businesses, cultural center, and transit.Homebuyers are seeking locations within walking distance to shopping, cultural amenities, jobs, and open space and the value of homes in these types of neighborhoods has increased at a much faster pace than homes in driveable suburban neighborhoods. “In a scenario where two houses are nearly identical, the one with a five-foot-wide sidewalk and two street tress not only sells for up to $34,000 more, but it also sells in less time,” wrote J. Cortright, in CEOs for Cities’ Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities. But, as the chart at the right shows, now you don’t have to live in a dense urban center to live a walkable lifestyle. Some 70% of upcoming, walkable places in Washington D.C. are quaint neighborhoods located outside of the urban core. Variety of TransportationAccessibility to useful multimodal transit—public transportation, bike friendly streets, and car share—is needed by baby boomers and desired by millennials. But there is an economic argument, too. “American families who are car-dependent spent 25% of their household income on their fleet of cars, compared to just 9% for transportation for those who live in walkable urban places,” says Leinberger. Walkable neighborhoods are now a top priority for seniors, along with access to transportation, and connectivity. Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy, Urban Land Institute, 2011; Transportation for America. The same is true for bike friendly cities. According to the Livable Street Alliance, as reported on the AARP Livability Fact Sheet, the average American household spends more than $8,000 a year on cars while the cost to maintain a bicycle is only about $300 per year. These savings, which could amount into the billions if trends were widely adopted, could be reinvested into transit-oriented development and infrastructure, education, and health care. Cities and property owners benefit from less car dependent zoning too. “An off-street parking space costs between $3,000 and $27,000 to build, and about $500 a year to maintain and manage. On-street parking is more efficient and can bring in as much as $300,000 per space in annual revenues,” writes Prof. Donald Shoup, in Instead of Free Parking. An increasing number of Americans spend close to 30% of their income on housing while transportation costs can consume an additional 20% or more of household income. Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy, Urban Land Institute, 2011. AffordabilityHousing affordability is a primary concern for many Americans across the country ranging from blue-collar workers to early-career singles, young families and seniors. There is an increasing segment of the population that spends more than 30% of their income on housing, reducing their purchasing power for other amenities (Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy, Urban Land Institute, 2011). Smaller homes and apartments cost less to rent or purchase and maintain, while urban neighborhoods provide services and amenities within walking distance as well as a variety of affordable transportation options. Cities and towns that want to retain or attract these household types need to focus on providing diverse, affordable housing options near jobs, schools, and other amenities within walkable communities. In addition, suburbs that want to retain their aging populations and attract newer, younger families, will need to create new, walkable urban environments and encourage the construction fo Missing Middle Housing through rezoning and by providing public transportation options. Sense of Community More and more, Americans say living in a diverse community that includes people at all stages of life is an important factor in determining where to live. Seniors want to live near family and friends, but not with them. Missing Middle building types allow people to stay in their community thoroughout their lives because of the variety of sizes available and an increased accessibility to services and amenities. Almost 49% of Americans are living in a multigenerational household. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Decennial Census and American Community Surveys. According to Chris Leinberger in his article “The Next Slum?” for The Atlantic, elements that used to draw families into the suburbs—better schools and safer communities—are now becoming the norm in cities, while these elements could worsen in suburbs that are dependent on home values and new development. Housing market projections suggest that construction in the near future will accelerate only moderately for single-family housing but will greatly increase for multifamily housing (Source: Jordan Rappaport, “The Demographic Shift From Single-Family to Multifamily Housing,” Economic Review, Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2013). Implemented in both urban and rural contexts, Missing Middle Housing allows people to stay in their community during different stages of life because of the wide variety of sizes, housing levels, and accessibility it provides. What are the characteristics of Missing Middle Housing? Missing Middle Housing is not a new type of building. It is a range of house-scale building types that exist in cities and towns across the country and were a fundamental part of pre-1940s neighborhoods. They are most likely present on some of your favorite city blocks—you may even have them in your own neighborhood. When a variety of Missing Middle building types are combined in a neighborhood (and usually with detached single-family homes), this helps to provide enough households within walking distance to support local businesses and public transit. On closer look, Missing Middle types are found within many of the most in-demand communities in places like Denver, Cincinnati, Austin and San Francisco. So what do Missing Middle building types have in common?
Missing Middle housing types are best located in a walkable context. Buyers and renters of these housing types are often trading space (housing and yard square footage) for place (proximity to services and amenities). The images below from Austin, TX, show the difference between walkable and non-walkable environments. On the left is the walkable urban neighborhood of Bouldin Creek, where the well-connected street grid and development pattern make walking and biking convenient and support robust public transit. On the right is the neighborhood of Northwest Hills, less walkable and more auto-oriented in character.  Walkable context (left); Auto-oriented context (right); Austin, TX A walkable context means not just pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and protected crossings, but also destinations to walk to. The map below from Greenville, SC shows an analysis of parcels that are truly “walkable”, and fall within a 10-minute walking distance of “centers” that provide services, shopping and transit.  Walkable neighborhood analysis; Greenville, SC Small-Footprint Buildings These housing types typically have small- to medium-sized footprints, with a body width, depth and height no larger than a detached single-family home. This allows a range of Missing Middle types—with varying densities but compatible forms—to be blended into a neighborhood, encouraging a mix of socioeconomic households and making these types a good tool for compatible infill.  Lower Perceived Density Due to the small footprint of the building types and the fact that they are usually mixed with a variety of building types even on an individual block, the perceived density of these types is usually quite low—they do not look like dense buildings. But one of the primary benefits of Missing Middle Housing is that it helps provide the number of households needed for transit and neighborhood-serving local businesses to be viable (typically about 16 dwelling units per acre). As shown below, a block with only single-family homes (left) generates low densities that do not support nearby amenities or transit. When Missing Middle Housing is thoughtfully integrated (right), it increases the population density to the threshold required to support neighborhood commercial amenities and transit.  Smaller, Well-Designed Units Missing Middle housing types have smaller units. The challenge is to create small spaces that are well designed, comfortable, and usable. The ultimate unit size will depend on the context, but smaller-sized units can help developers keep their costs down and attract a different market of buyers and renters who are not being provided for in all markets. Smaller, well-designed units are very attractive to the 30 percent of US households that are single-person household, baby boomers that want to downsize, and other households choosing to live small for environmental reasons. Since Missing Middle types work well for both for-sale and rental housing, this further increases their appeal as more and more people nowadays are choosing to rent for longer or even permanently, over home ownership. Fewer Off-street Parking Spaces Because they are built in walkable neighborhoods with proximity to transportation options and commercial amenities, Missing Middle housing types do not need the same amount of parking as suburban housing. We typically recommend no more than one parking spot per unit, and preferably less. In fact, requiring more than one parking space per unit can make Missing Middle types infeasible to build. For example, if your zoning code requires two parking spaces per unit, a fourplex would require eight parking spaces, which would never fit on a typical residential lot. In addition, providing that much off-street parking for each fourplex would create a neighborhood of [remove ‘small’] parking lots rather than the desired neighborhood of homes. Less parking means more households on the same amount of land, increasing the viability of transit and local businesses. The cost of providing parking also has a tremendous impact on overall feasibility of development, and housing affordability, as illustrated by the table below.  Simple Construction Missing Middle Housing is simply constructed (wood-frame/Type V), which makes it a very attractive alternative for developers to achieve good densities without the added financing challenges and risk of more complex construction types. This aspect can also increase affordability when units are sold or rented. As providing single family detached sub-$200,000 starter homes is becoming increasingly out of reach for builders across the country, Missing Middle Housing can provide an attractive and affordable alternative starter home.  Creates Community Missing Middle Housing creates community through the integration of shared community spaces within the building type (e.g. cottage court), or simply from being located within a vibrant neighborhood with places to eat, drink, and socialize. This is an important aspect in particular considering the growing market of single-person households (nearly 30% of all households) that want to be part of a community. Missing Middle housing helps to create a shared sense of community, as seen in the example below from Conover Commons, Redmond, WA. Source: The Cottage Company.  Marketable Because of the increasing demand from baby boomers and millennials, as well as shifting household demographics, the market is demanding more vibrant, sustainable, walkable places to live. These Missing Middle housing types respond directly to this demand. In addition, the scale of these housing types makes them more attractive to many buyers who want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but may not want to live in a large condominium or apartment building. The graphs below highlight the shifting demand for walkable living and Missing Middle Housing.  If there is land for beautifully-designed homes that fill a gap between stand-alone houses and mid-rise apartments, the smart thing to do is to fill it with housing types we’ve been missing in our market for so long. — Heather Hood, Deputy Director, Northern California, Enterprise Community Partners How does Missing Middle Housing integrate into blocks? Missing Middle Housing types typically have a footprint not larger than a large detached single-family home, making it easy to integrate them into existing neighborhoods, and serve as a way for the neighborhood to transition to higher-density and main street contexts. There are a number of ways in which this can be accomplished:
Missing Middle Housing types are spread throughout the block and stand side-by-side with detached single-family homes. This blended pattern of detached single-family homes and Missing Middle Housing types, with densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre, works well because the forms of these types are never larger than a large house.  Placed on the end-grain of a block Missing Middle Housing types are placed on the end-grain of a block with detached single-family homes, facing the primary street, which is often a slightly busier corridor than the streets to which the detached single-family homes are oriented. The most common condition is to have several fourplex units on the end grain lots facing the primary street. This configuration is usually located on the end grain of several continuous blocks adjacent to a neighborhood main street, which increases the blended density to achieve the 16 dwelling units/acre necessary to support small, locally-serving commercial and service amenities, and transit. This configuration allows for the use of slightly larger buildings because the Missing Middle housing types are not sitting next to detached single-family homes. In this block type, the alley to the rear of the lots also allows for a good transition in scale to the detached single-family home lots behind them. Often you will see a similar block configuration with one or two fourplexes on the corners of the end grain lots on the block.  Transitioning to a commercial corridor Missing Middle Housing is excellent to transition from a neighborhood to a Main Street with commercial and mixed-use buildings. These types are generally more tolerant and better able to effectively mitigate any potential conflicts related to the proximity to commercial/retail buildings or parking lots behind commercial buildings.  Transitioning to higher-density housing Smaller-scale Missing Middle Housing types are placed on a few of the lots that transition from the side street to the primary street, providing a transition in scale to the larger buildings on the end grain of the block along the primary street.  For us, mixing housing types is important in today’s market. Buyers want choices, the investors and lenders want more flexibility in the projects, and planning officials expect a more thoughtful integration into the existing neighborhoods. The mixing of product provides a diverse community, enhances value, and it helps create the type of place our buyers are looking for today. — David Leazenby, Onyx+East What’s the best way to enable Missing Middle Housing? (Hint: Conventional Zoning Doesn’t Work) Problems with Conventional Zoning by Land UseConventional (Euclidean) zoning regulates primarily by land use, dividing neighborhoods into single-family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, office, etc. This separation of uses creates the opposite of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods. Along with use, conventional zones typically rely on numeric values, such as floor area ratio (FAR) and density, which results in unpredictability and creates all sorts of barriers to Missing Middle Housing. Missing Middle Housing (MMH) are multi-unit, house-scale buildings intended to be part of low-rise residential neighborhoods. However, these types of neighborhoods are often zoned as single-family residential disallowing multi-family buildings, thus preventing Missing Middle types from being built. Yet, there are numerous examples across the U.S. where, for example, a house-scale fourplex fits in nicely with single-family detached houses. Why? Because it’s the same size and footprint as a typical single-family home. Conventional zoning creates multifamily zones that typically allow much bigger buildings – both taller and wider – than Missing Middle types. This also encourages lot aggregation, often leading to large suburban garden apartment buildings. The end can be an awkward juxtaposition of these very different residential environments, often with abrupt transitions in form and scale. Missing Middle types can successfully bridge these two environments, if allowed. Conventional zoning codes often fail to regulate building size and form in proportion to lot sizes, that can lead to awkward relationships between neighboring properties. Form-based standards avoid such incompatibility by regulating building forms, massing and transitions.  Zoning by Density Another reality that we’ve found is that most communities regulate housing projects with the residential density tool. In addition to this tool not being clear about what form the buildings might take, density-based zoning doesn’t work with the “blended densities” found in neighborhoods where Missing Middle Housing (MMH) thrives. MMH buildings are similar in form and scale to detached single-family homes. But because they include from 2 to 12 units on a lot, MMH buildings often vary dramatically in their densities compared to houses. This makes it either illegal to build them in many zones, and complicated to regulate with a density-based system. For example, consider a cottage court that can have net densities from 14 to 21 units per acre (or more with alley-loaded lots), even though the buildings are only one story tall, and each cottage is only 25 feet by 30 feet (slightly bigger than a 2-car garage). This low-intensity, house-scale multi-family type is an excellent way of adding housing while blending in with single-family homes. However, this type would not be allowed in many conventional single-family residential zones (since it has multiple units) and may also not be allowed in conventional multi-family zones that operates on density standards. For instance, if a multi-family zone allows a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre with few form standards, builders/developers will tend to max out the lot with a large, out-of-scale apartment building, rather than building the cottage court that the neighborhood would prefer. This is because, typically, an investor will tend to use every allowed unit and not leave money on the table. It’s just common sense and human nature. Another issue with density-based zoning is that tends to treat all units the same regardless of size. This means that a 3,500-square-foot unit is considered the same as a 600-square-foot unit for calculations such as density, parking and open space. The lack of recognizing these differences in size discourages much-needed, smaller units. For example, using conventional zoning, a fourplex with four, 600 sf units would require four times the parking and open space as a 2,400 sf detached single-family home, even though the amount of building area is the same. This presents confusion and barriers, typically making the fourplex unfeasible to fit on a typical lot. Barriers to Missing Middle Housing from Conventional Zoning Conventional or Euclidean zoning has inadvertently created a number of barriers to enable the design and delivery of Missing Middle Housing. Some of the key issues are:
Form-Based Coding is a proven alternative to conventional zoning that effectively regulates Missing Middle Housing. Form-Based Codes (FBCs) remove barriers and incentivize Missing Middle Housing in appropriate locations in a community. FBCs represent a paradigm shift in the way that we regulate the built environment, using physical form rather than a separation of uses as the organizing principal, to create predictable, built results and a high-quality public realm. The Form-Based Approach to Regulating Missing Middle HousingThe form-based approach starts with a Community Character Analysis of the community’s existing patterns of development and built form, climate, and other considerations. Looking at the existing patterns and desired future built form, a range of form-based zones are created. For each form-based zone, a specific range of housing types are allowed, that would allow the neighborhood or community to evolve while ensuring compatibility with existing buildings. For example, in a walkable residential neighborhood, allowed building types may include single-family detached homes, cottage courts, and side-by-side duplexes. In a more urban walkable neighborhood, cottage courts, side-by-side duplexes, stacked duplexes, fourplexes, and small multiplexes may be allowed. In addition, for each building type, a Form-Based Code typically provides supplemental form standards that are calibrated to ensure good urbanism and prevent overbuilding in terms of height and bulk. For example, a cottage court typically allows for 6 to 8 units, but also specifies form standards such as a maximum height of 1 to 1.5 stories, a maximum building footprint/unit size of around 800 square feet and a minimum size for the shared courtyard or green space.   Regulating with building types and this fine-grained approach allows for more predictable built outcomes. For instance, on a 100′ by 100′ lot, an FBC can allow two fourplexes, or a cottage court with eight small, one-story units; but not a single, larger eight-unit apartment building. For these reasons and more, Form-Based Coding is the most effective way to enable Missing Middle Housing. “I want to thank you for your great work on Missing Middle Housing! It has been useful in my current research on policy reforms to support more affordable infill development in Victoria, B.C., and informing my report ‘Affordable Accessible Housing in a Dynamic City.’ — Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute More information about Form-Based Codes, see:
 Comments are closed.
|
Author
|
RSS Feed