What's the deal with "missing middle" housing?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

As urban infill they're fine but have to compete with infill single-family homes, which are almost always more profitable.

And you know this how?

As someone who is actually directly involved with the infill housing business here in chicago, the small-time builders we work with almost always max out the unit count that the underlying zoning allows for.

Why the hell would they do that if infill SFHs are "almost always more profitable"?

Are they just complete fucking morons who hate money?

Or is it possible that you don't know as much as you think you know?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I guess Bucharest is an example of a city with virtually no missing middle built since WWII.



even the new shit being haphazardly built in surrounding communities is like this


And sadly much of the pre WWII stuff was demolished for more commie blocks...

That second pic looks all too similar to the area around York University on the outer edge of Toronto lol

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Here in the Houston area, they are being built in far flung suburbs. No where close to the city center and if they are, it's in low income/ high crime areas.

I missed this post earlier, but it sounds like Houston is the opposite of Chicago in this regard.

Small-scale MFH (2-9 units) is really something you only see as urban infill within the city of Chicago these days. Im not aware of it being built anywhere in suburban chicagoland in meaningful numbers (I'm not counting townhouse/duplex stuff here, just actual small-scale MFH).

[mhays]

Most four-unit projects are tiny sites, often former individual SFR locations. Some are sites where you could theoretically do an apartment but can't justify the cost of going taller and below-grade.

In my area the four-unit projects are often technically SFRs. We also get a lot of accessory units.

The numbers should grow nationally since a lot of states and cities have opened up their land use codes recently. In my state all cities (minus the really small ones) have been rewriting their rules to allow fourplexes and often eightplexes, which also means accessory units are easy. The exception will be where HOAs add their own restrictions.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

In my area the four-unit projects are often technically SFRs.

Huh?

How is a 4-unit building technically a SFH?

[mhays]

I said project, not building.

Lots of examples of stand-alone townhouses here: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6732759,..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDcyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[muppet]

Polite reminder, building a city is not just about ramping profits to the builder. Neither is it furnishing everything for the one family.








It should be a messy mix of competing interests, making compromises

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

How is a 4-unit building technically a SFH?

American mortgage rules have considered them to be SFH's for 100~ years. You can buy an existing small multifamily up to 4 units with a conventional mortgage or a FHA loan the exact same way that you buy a single-family home.

BUILDING them is another matter, since you need to find a bank that will give you the construction loan. Few banks have experience with this and so will pass. For certain, you're going to be putting down a larger down payment and probably paying higher interest because it's a risk for the bank in a way that a SFH is not.

Again, this is why zoning is borderline irrelevant. If the bank won't give you the construction loan then the building isn't happening, zoning or no zoning. And if you have the cash, there are way smarter things to do with the cash than build small multifamilies.

The value of a single-family house is based on comparable sales of similar single-family houses. But the value of a small multifamily, like a large multifamily, is based on the rent it can collect. It's a completely different animal. A single-family house might also be valued per its rental value if it's in a student rental area near a college, but such situations are rare.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Again, this is why zoning is borderline irrelevant. If the bank won't give you the construction loan then the building isn't happening, zoning or no zoning. And if you have the cash, there are way smarter things to do with the cash than build small multifamilies.

And again, why do builders in Chicago have no problem at all getting loans to build small-scale MFH?

If zoning is borderline irrelevant, and more profit can be made building SFH, why do these same builders always max out their unit counts based upon underlying zoning?


You like to pontificate as though you know everything about how the world works, and then I present you with a very real world example that runs counter to all of your pontificating and you simply ignore it. Why?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

I said project, not building.

Lots of examples of stand-alone townhouses here: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6732759,..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDcyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Oh right.

Sorry, when I read "project", my brain hears "building" because of my job and because cottage courts really aren't a thing here for the most part, unless you have a really unusual piece of land.

Anyway, I'm guessing that typical R lot sizes in Seattle are a bit more generous than in Chicago.

Building 4 detached SFHs on a standard 25'×125' lot in Chicago would be tricky given how the Chicago zoning code essentially bends over backwards to encourage flats in all R districts above RS-3.