Missing Middle Housing Opponents Are Missing Important Facts. Here’s What They Need To Know.

A court battle that recently concluded in Arlington, Virginia, could help shape the future of housing nationwide.

Last December, the city council approved zoning changes that allow for diverse housing styles in zones previously limited to single-family homes. Now residents are suing to halt the city’s Missing Middle Housing policy. Judge David S. Schell ruled the plaintiff’s case has standing and can go to trial.

The policy aimed to build more townhouses, duplexes, and other housing that comprises the “middle” between single-family dwellings and larger apartment buildings. Its opponents warn of impacts on property values, traffic, and trees. It’s not just Virginia: residents have filed lawsuits against similar statewide policies in Minnesota and California.

But opponents in these cases fail to adequately consider four national trends that make Missing Middle Housing essential today and in the future.

First, we face a severe housing crisis. The U.S. now faces a shortfall of nearly 4 million homes. This has pushed housing costs to extreme levels: the median cost of existing homes rose by 4% from last year to an all-time high of $426,900. Soaring prices push middle- and lower-income families further away from jobs and opportunities, lengthening commutes and worsening air pollution.

Second, the climate crisis is accelerating, and we need to respond with changes to our built environment. Home energy use and transportation together account for nearly half of U.S. carbon emissions, and both can be mitigated by smarter housing solutions. Attached, multifamily homes use less energy when compared to their detached single-family equivalents. And by building more compact housing in walkable, bikeable neighborhoods near transit we can reduce emissions and shorten those hellish commutes. Denser neighborhoods are also better able to support future transit if they do not already have it.

Third, our nation is aging. In just over five years, the U.S. will be home to more older adults than children for the first time. By 2030, 1 in 5 people in the United States — or 20% of the nation’s population — will be 65 or older. For many older adults, housing options are now limited to remaining in oversized homes or relocating to age-segregated retirement communities or expensive assisted-living facilities. Missing Middle Housing gives people choices about how and where to age, including the possibility of downsizing in their current neighborhoods near friends or family members. This is why AARP strongly endorses Missing Middle Housing.

Finally, Missing Middle Housing provides choices Americans want. A recent study by the National Association of Realtors found that 53% of American households would prefer to live in an attached dwelling (apartment, condo, townhome) rather than a detached single-family home if it meant they would have an easy walk to shops and restaurants. But only about 8% of our built environment delivers that choice, creating a tremendous gap between supply and demand.

The Arlington plaintiffs fear that adding two-, four- or six-plexes (the maximum allowed in Arlington’s Missing Middle plan) will lower the quality of life in their neighborhoods. But the reality is that many of the most treasured and highest-value neighborhoods across the country already include diverse housing options.

Most neighborhoods built before the 1940s mixed these housing types on blocks with single-family homes with no detriment to the quality of life for residents. Because Missing Middle homes are similar in scale to their single-family counterparts, often the only way to differentiate between the two is the number of mailboxes visible on the front porch. In these locations, it’s not uncommon to find highly desirable homes that cost over $1 million located right next to fourplexes or other Missing Middle housing types.

Missing Middle Housing is not a radical new approach. It is a tried-and-true way to meet the need for more housing choices at varying price points, create more climate-friendly housing and neighborhoods, and offer more options for the older adults who comprise an increasingly large share of our population.

A final judgment in the Arlington case is expected soon, and its outcome will be closely watched by municipalities across the country. Minnesota’s Missing Middle policy remains in limbo, though an injunction was recently lifted, allowing development to proceed. Five cities in California successfully challenged the state’s Missing Middle policy, but appeals are expected in those cases.

As our communities weigh their future, let’s not miss the chance to build housing that can respond to the housing crises of today and the challenges of the future, while delivering the types of homes that American households want and need.