By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
The “Missing Middle”—some believe this form of housing is the key to unwrapping the current housing crisis. Recently the Terner Center in Berkeley released a paper outlining the ongoing challenges to the missing middle housing.
“Despite recent zoning reform successes, regulatory, financing, and construction barriers still pose challenges to making missing middle housing, with its benefits for affordability and sustainability, a more widespread form of housing development,” the report noted.
Missing middle “housing refers to a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types that are compatible in scale with single-family homes… but are less common in new homebuilding.”
According to the report, “The term “missing” is used because these types of housing have been illegal to “build in most neighborhoods throughout the country since the 1920s, even though they were once prevalent across North America.
“Housing developments exist across a spectrum of scales and forms, with detached single-family homes at one end and mid-rise to high-rise apartments on the other; the “middle” of this range includes smaller-scale duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and courtyard buildings,” it continues.
There are number of reasons why advocates argue for expanding the supply of this housing.
First is to loosen the “stranglehold” of single-family zoning which many believe has been used for “exclusionary purposes.”
This is critical to understanding the phenomena and the reform movement: “Although racial covenants were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, the restriction of building types through the zoning code—with policies such as minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, and height limitations— allowed cities to maintain the 
widespread exclusion of households of color
and lower-income households.”
Further, “The high prices commanded by the resulting, larger single-family dwellings prevent lower-income households—including a disproportionate share of people of color—from moving into single-family neighborhoods, which also often have greater amenities and resources such as larger investments in schools and parks.”
The report notes: “The recent passage of local ordinances and state laws like California’s Senate
Bill 9 thus signal a desire to move away from single-family zoning in order to redress its racist origins and to increase racial equity in housing and neighborhood access.”
More than this the report finds that “the creation of missing middle housing can have a positive impact on the availability of more affordable “starter homes” that allow new buyers to enter otherwise competitive housing markets.”
This is critical to reversing a trend where smaller homes – those less than 1400 square feet – have decreased markedly since the 1970s.
“Missing middle homes are smaller than most conventional single-family housing, making them more affordable by design,” the report notes. “Since each home is typically smaller, more housing units can fit on a plot of land—reducing the overall land cost per unit. The facilitation of missing middle housing types can be a tool to meet market demand for entry-level for sale homes as well as rental housing as they can be offered at lower price points than single-family-zoned homes.”
Terner also notes that this would generate environmental benefits as well.
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that residents in multifamily and single-family attached homes in higher-density neighborhoods use about 40 percent less electricity and 50 percent less water than residents in low-density areas,” the report notes.
They also found that the construction of such homes in existing neighborhoods “can also result in residents living in places that are more walkable and result in lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The increase in density encourages transit agencies to provide more frequent service and contributes to more residents using public transportation and relying less on private vehicle usage, which accounts for 38 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
A number of states and local jurisdictions have taken steps to encourage the expansion of missing middle housing.
“The state of California has also been a leader in missing middle housing reform, having passed a series of new laws since 2016 to facilitate ADU growth,” the report notes. “The state has since passed even more ambitious legislation, such as SB 9, which enables homeowners to subdivide a single-family lot to build up to two new homes on each lot.”
A 2021 Terner Center analysis estimated that “SB 9 could enable 700,000 new market-feasible homes, with the caveat that far fewer homes would actually be built given other factors not captured in the analysis and the significant flexibility in implementation afforded to localities.”
In addition, Senate Bill 10, passed in 2021, “provides cities an option to zone for up to 10 housing units on a parcel located within a transit-rich area or urban infill site without environmental review.”
Despite all of these advantages and changes, “builders may still be facing barriers that make it difficult to take advantage of these changes.”
Terner found that simply changing zoning by itself is not sufficient to facilitate new missing middle housing. Design requirements must be “flexible to allow for more units on smaller lots.”
Further, “the economics of duplex, triplex, and fourplex development are still challenging. This dynamic was particularly true in California, where we heard that high costs in certain markets hamper project feasibility when the builder is limited to adding just one or two extra units.”
As a result, Terner makes several recommendations.
- States should go beyond zoning to catalyze missing middle housing growth at meaningful levels through other development code changes.
- Localities should reexamine existing land use regulations beyond base zoning.
- Localities should consider going above state baseline requirements.
Terner concludes: “Missing middle housing can be an important part of the overall housing solution, providing meaningful amounts of housing in existing single-family neighborhoods without significantly altering the look and feel of those places. Policymakers are increasingly interested in this development type, as indicated by the spate of new laws across the country meant to catalyze its growth. However, policymakers must look beyond “ending single-family zoning” in order to see this housing type built. Changing base zoning is unlikely to yield meaningful amounts of new housing without parallel policy changes.”
The best examples of these types of housing are in La Buena Vida, also known as the McKeon condominiums.
https://localwiki.org/davis/McKeon_Condominiums
Lots of families, open spaces with large lawn areas and trees in a park-like setting. These are some of the lowest cost housing units in town.
Here’s your so-called (additional) “missing middle” housing planned for Davis:
https://foutshomes.com/chiles-ranch/elevations-and-floor-plans/
The entire, existing Mace Ranch development might (already) qualify as “missing middle” housing, using (almost) that same description.
And, who knows if Chiles Ranch will sell for more than what’s listed?
Probably other parts of town, as well (e.g., what I believe are called the Stanley Davis homes, between Pole Line and Mace Ranch).
Places like Woodland, Elk Grove, and Natomas are more diverse than Davis, but also have a lot of new and pre-existing single family homes.
“Missing middle” housing is “affordable” housing for Bay Area transplants. I suspect that approximately half of Davis residents came from somewhere else (especially the Bay Area).
As usual, a solution in search of a problem. And worse than that – pretends that Davis is an island.
Here’s the thing: New residents (especially young families) to the area are simply going to buy in places like Spring Lake, where they get more for their money. Like it, or not.
Of course, I’d challenge the premise that setting out to attract new residents (in new developments) should be a “goal” in the first place.
I’m not really understanding the point of your post. You’ve cited houses that go from 1400 to 2200 square feet when the “missing middle” category is under 1400 square feet.
Pricing starting in the “mid $700K range”, which would presumably be for the smallest house (1400 square feet).
And I believe that this figure has not been updated for some time. (Though with housing prices going down, who knows what “direction” these particular housing units will sell for.) In any case, there’s close to 100 of them planned for that site (and have been planned for more than a decade).
The same builder is cramming-in a number of housing units at the former site of the skilled nursing facility on Pole Line, as well.
Families generally don’t choose to live in small houses, when bigger ones are available very nearby at a lower price. (This is partly what makes Davis different than the Bay Area, though there’s also vast differences in price between the Berkeley Hills, vs. Richmond – for example.)
What you are talking about is not what Terner is talking about in terms of the missing middle. It would be a development a step down in size – say 700 to 1400 instead of 1400 to 2200.
Like I said, families generally won’t seek those out, if other options are available to them.
Everyone, when moving to a given area – checks out housing in the entire area (especially if they’re going to purchase a housing unit).
But again, Davis already has “missing middle” housing, of the type that families generally pursue. Lots of it, for that matter.
Mace Ranch, for example (even now) does not attract particularly-wealthy people. They appear to be solidly middle-class, but they’re still most likely arriving from outside of Davis. (Including recent arrivals, purchasing pre-existing housing.)
The Cannery is also the type of housing that was designed (for the most part) to attract families.
By “family”, I’m referring to those with kids in this case.
They’re buying in Spring Lake. (And some folks also migrated to Spring Lake from Davis, itself. Including some retirees, though the vast majority of the development is attracting new families.)
In any case, the units planned at Chiles Ranch and Pole Line are already “smaller” than what most families pursue. Lot size, house size, garage space, etc. – all quite small.
There are some families who will pay for the status of having a Davis address.
Ron O
I’m mystified by your comment. Are you saying that people should buy in other communities like Natomas instead? But I thought there was not housing crisis, so they should be able to buy in Davis? Your arguments about affordability, housing availability, population growth and everything else is all muddled up. All I can see is more evidence that you want to build a moat around Davis despite the fact that you don’t even live here and have no discernable connection to our community. Why do you insist on meddling here?
Richard M
I don’t believe you’re actually interested in asking me any “honest” questions (and never have been), nor do I see any in your rambling comment above.
And if living in Davis is “your” criteria for putting forth comments on here, ask Don Shor that same question.
None of this is about “me”, despite your repeated attempts to make “me” the argument.
If you want to ask me a “real” question regarding the comments I put forth, I’m all ears.
If you stopped assuming the worst about me to begin with, perhaps you’d see things differently. I’m a slow-growther, doing what I can to preserve farmland in particular. But I also see the push for density as unjustified, sometimes harmful (and ultimately – unsupportable), even if it’s less environmentally-harmful.
I am glad that the state’s population has dropped for the past couple of years, and shows no signs of resuming the significant growth that’s occurred in the past. (Though sprawl is continuing, perhaps because people are moving out of places like San Francisco.)
Ron O
This is about you. That you just suggested that people live in Natomas or other communities instead of Davis belies your claim about being concerned about preserving farmland–those places build at lower densities than Davis meaning more land is consumed per person. If you are truly interested in the “slow growth” (when you actually mean NO growth in Davis based on your opposition to downtown development too), you would be focusing your attention where faster growth is already encouraged. We don’t need your outsider’s help on that matter here, and haven’t needed it since the mid 1990s.
As for Don Shor and others who comment here, I’ve already explained fully that those people have a stake in the future of Davis–you do not because you live in Woodland (a community that view as being in competition with Davis on several fronts) and have no other discernable connection here. Future UCD students have more at stake here than you do. You can continue to comment here if you’d like, but I will continue to point out that you are an outsider who is not a stakeholder in determining the future of our community and therefore you should be ignored.
I have tried to engage you in asking questions. You consistently avoid answering my direct questions or acknowledging the validity of the facts that I put before you to refute your fallacious assertions. And I have been very explicit about those incidents. On the other hand, I consistently put before you data and studies that answer your queries (many of which you apparently don’t read because you repeat the statements and questions again later.) Your behavior is consistent with that of other Internet trolls who are only interested in getting a rise out of others. So I longer am interested in engaging with you in intellectual discourse until you reveal an willingness and ability to engage in an actual discussion rather than a diatribe in which you demand that all others bow down to your speculation.
And yet, all of your responses to me are about me.
None of which I actually said at anytime, or anywhere.
I have pointed out what new residents to the area actually pursue (based upon price vs. value), and that these communities are more diverse than Davis (despite having a plethora of single-family housing).
I’ve previously pointed out that I’m not opposed to all downtown redevelopment – nor am I completely opposed to University Mall including some housing.
How do you know whether or not I’m doing so, already?
Maybe you should tell that to Don, though I have no idea what your reference is to the “mid 1990s”. Certainly nothing to do with me.
Don doesn’t live in Davis, and yet – you never mention that. Your responses (exclusively to me) focus on residency, based upon what you dug up and posted via some newspaper articles.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, you have no idea if I have a connection (or more than one type of connection) to Davis.
Again, remind me as to the reason you’re claiming that your comments aren’t about me?
Again, a false claim. And in fact, UCD students living on campus have no real stake in Davis itself. (The same folks you want to “enfranchise”, while simultaneously “disenfranchising” actual residents who support Measure J.)
It’s not up to you to “invite” me to continue commenting on here. Also, if you suspect that I may have connections to Davis, then you’re putting forth false claims. You’re also not serving your “cause” or the Vanguard itself.
Not once have you tried asking a legitimate question.
Again, a false claim.
Name one.
No idea what you’re talking about.
Do you have a mirror? Also, since when is it “o.k.” to call someone a troll on here?
When were you ever “interested” in actually engaging?
I hadn’t noticed this when responding, but I now see that you actually did intend (as usual) to make your comment about me, rather than engage in the issues.
I didn’t expect you to admit that, so I must have inadvertently inserted an “isn’t” in my response back to you – based upon what one might expect from someone supposedly debating issues (rather than debating “individuals”).
Maybe we could have an entire series of articles “about” the commenters themselves on here – full disclosures that can be dug-into and debated, especially since there aren’t that many commenters left on here in the first place.
I’m *sure* that will align with the supposed goals of the Vanguard to encourage more commenters (and more substantive comments) on here.
In other words, “forget the issues – let’s talk about YOU, instead.” 🙂
Actually, that might make for a more-interesting ongoing topic, for some. (Beyond what already occurs on here.)