What's the deal with "missing middle" housing? - Page 2

Steely Dan · #21 Posted **Aug 2, 2026, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

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 · #22 Posted **Aug 2, 2026, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

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 · #23 Posted **Aug 3, 2026, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

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 · #24 Posted **Aug 3, 2026, 10:44 PM**

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 · #25 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

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 · #26 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 5:10 AM**

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 · #27 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 5:11 AM**

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 · #28 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 6:22 AM**

Quote:

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 · #29 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 11:22 AM**

Quote:

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 · #30 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 11:50 AM**

Quote:

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.

mhays · #31 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 3:30 PM**

Seattle SFR lots are commonly 50' by 100', though with variation by neighborhood. It's easy to get a four-pack of tall, skinny townhouses on that--sometimes as separate houses.

Most existing townhouses are on multifamily land with low height limits, often on the fringes of mixed-use districts. With MF rules they can build large houses/townhouses.

The new frontier is the former SFR zones that have traditionally dominated the city. The rules have just now changed to allow eight units on most of those lots, but square footage is limited to 10,000 sf via a sliding scale that starts with 3,000 sf for one unit.

One reason we get townhouses instead of stacked units is condo liability law. Small condo buildings just don't pencil and townhouses aren't treated as condos.

Notonfoodstamps · #32 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 4:37 PM**

Missing middle isn't the singular answer but it absolutely helps in the greater context of urbanism, equitable housing, and has long been ignored in the US outside a handful of cities.

Townhomes, Duplexes, Triplexes, etc... are a fantastic use of space on small/irregular lots that don't make financial sense to put SFH(s), but where you can't build (or finance) large multi-family buildings.

JManc · #33 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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).

I actually misunderstood "missing middle" thinking it meant housing aimed towards the middle class but I found it means something between SFH and large MFH which in that case, Houston is indeed building them in spades. They are expensive (for Houston) but there is no shortage of demand and new development. Though, more recent development has shifted away from physically connected units (duplexes and triplexes) and more towards single structures with the appearances of MFH because they are less than a foot apart. Not sure why...insurance/ fire codes?

mhays · #34 Posted **Aug 4, 2026, 8:16 PM**

There are two meanings I've heard:
1. Developments that aren't houses or big apartment buildings.
2. Developments that offer housing types that mix elements of houses and apartments.

Townhouses, accessory units, three-flats, etc., obviously qualify. By some definitions you can also include rowhouse-type units in big apartment buildings.

Bailey · #35 Posted **Yesterday, 3:36 AM**

What is "missing middle " housing? I've never heard that term?

Steely Dan · #36 Posted **Yesterday, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey

What is "missing middle " housing? I've never heard that term?

From post #11 of this very thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

From google AI:

Quote:

Common Types of Missing Middle Housing:

- Duplexes and Triplexes: Two or three homes attached side-by-side or stacked on a single lot.

- Townhouses and Rowhouses: Narrow, multi-story homes sharing side walls.

- Bungalow / Cottage Courts: Groups of small, detached homes arranged around a shared central garden or courtyard.

- Small Multi-Flats: Low-rise buildings with two to six apartments (similar to Chicago’s classic two-flats).

I've always considered anything above detached SFH and under 10 units as "missing middle".

But the 10 unit thing might just be my location bias, because in chicago, all of the rules* for MFH change once you get to 10+ units.

That demarcation line might be different in other jurisdictions.

(*) construction type, elevators, ADA, sprinklers, affordability reqs., etc.

jmecklenborg · #37 Posted **Yesterday, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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

Reread my Google search querry regarding how many small multifamilies are built nationwide versus how many larger complexes are built. It's an irrelevant number in a country of over 300 million people.

Small rental multifamilies are NOT being built in Nashville at all, which has seen more new construction than almost any mid-sized city (and probably not Austin, although I have much less experience there so I won't comment). When the zoning changed in 2010, developers started tearing down houses and jamming as many individual SFH's on those lots as newly possible, not rental units.

Crap like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Na..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDgwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Quote:

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?

There are far, far more examples of infill SFH's than infill 2-4 multifamilies on the lots that are zones to allow small multifamilies. Like 100 to 1.

Quote:

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?

Because the national statistics illustrate that small multifamilies are a niche product. They are more expensive, per-unit, to build and more expensive, per-unit, to manage as compared to larger complexes. They're bad business.

Again, for a niche like a very specific city infill project, a vacation area, a college area, or something like that, they can make sense, but there is no such thing as a developer building 25 4-families instead of a 1 100-unit building.

Steely Dan · #38 Posted **Yesterday, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Reread my Google search querry regarding how many small multifamilies are built nationwide versus how many larger complexes are built. It's an irrelevant number in a country of over 300 million people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

there is no such thing as a developer building 25 4-families instead of a 1 100-unit building.

LOL!

About 2 months ago I worked on the zoning package for a development on the south side of Chicago that consists of a completely vacant half-block site that the developer wants to build 24 individual 2-flats on.

Why isn't he just planning to build a single 48-unit apartment building?

You might be right about America.

I don't know & don't really care, but if you are right, then Chicago is clearly a different kind of urban animal.

If Chicago can build infill small-scale MFH.......

JManc · #39 Posted **Yesterday, 6:12 PM**

^ Aren't you a CAD designer/ draftsman? That's what I did all through college and graduate school. Kinda wish I had stuck with it but hindsight is 20/20...

iheartthed · #40 Posted **Yesterday, 6:28 PM**

Nashville is one of the least densely populated large cities in the country. Even by Sun Belt standards it's low density, coming in at less than half the average density of the urban paradise of Raleigh, North Carolina lol. It doesn't have to rely on density to grow, but that's not a luxury that most other large cities in the U.S. have anymore.