Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Personally, I don't consider rowhouses to be "missing middle" housing for two reasons.
1. They are single-family homes, just set up in a different manner than most.
2. The U.S. actually builds a fair amount of townhouses. Close to one out of every five units of SFH is now a townhouse. So while you can argue they're a middle density, they're not really "missing" from any metropolitan area.
I think of missing middle as really being small multifamily - two flats, triple-deckers, etc. These are indeed quite rare - often due to a combination of zoning, building codes, parking minimums, elevator requirements, etc.
Here in Pittsburgh, we never had a ton of this style of housing, though there was a brief period around 1900 to 1910 when some Chicago style three/six flats were being built, and another period in the 1920s where even more two/four flats were constructed. Still, in the modern era, these style of buildings are essentially only constructed for affordable housing. |
The technical definition of "missing middle" includes 1-unit, attached but here's the share per city if you limit to 2 - 4 units:
43% -- Buffalo
29% -- Milwaukee
27% -- Chicago
26% -- St. Louis
21% -- New York City
20% -- Cincinnati
20% -- San Francisco
20% -- Cleveland
15% -- Pittsburgh
14% -- Philadelphia
13% -- Columbus
12% -- Minneapolis
10% -- Washington, D.C.
10% -- Louisville
10% -- Baltimore
9% -- Los Angeles
9% -- Detroit
9% -- Indanapolis
9% -- Memphis
8% -- Portland
8% -- Las Vegas
8% -- San Diego
8% -- El Paso
7% -- San Antonio
7% -- Miami
7% -- Jacksonville
7% -- Austin
7% -- Houston
7% -- Nashville
7% -- Dallas
7% -- San Jose
6% -- Oklahoma City
6% -- Phoenix
6% -- Atlanta
5% -- Seattle
5% -- Denver
5% -- Fort Worth
4% -- Charlotte
The average of these cities is 12%. Unsurprisingly, old, prewar cities with small footprints dominate the upper end, while newer Sun Belt cities mostly dominate the lower end. Prewar urban/sprawly hybrids (L.A., Detroit) hover close to the middle.
Threaded Mode