02

Missing middle

Bring back the homes between a house and a high-rise

Duplexes, fourplexes, cottages, courtyard apartments, and rowhouses once made ordinary neighborhoods work. Let them belong again.

In plain English

Allow a house-sized building to contain more than one home, and restore familiar forms such as duplexes, courtyard apartments, and rowhouses.

How it works

Remove the barrier. Let homes respond.

01

Share scarce land

Two or four households can share land that zoning otherwise reserves for one.

02

Broaden the builders

Smaller projects can be undertaken by local builders and homeowners.

03

Create gradual change

Neighborhoods can add homes one lot at a time instead of relying only on megaprojects.

The implementation test

Real reform or paper promise?

Missing-middle reform is not a mandate for every block to become high-rise. Most projects remain small and appear gradually as owners choose to build.

TestStrongWeak or symbolic
Housing types

StrongDuplexes through fourplexes and townhomes are clearly legal.

Weak or symbolicOnly one narrow prototype technically qualifies.

Lot rules

StrongUnit count fits within a practical building envelope.

Weak or symbolicPer-unit lot area or setbacks make added homes impossible.

Cost

StrongFees and utility rules reflect the project's small scale.

Weak or symbolicEach unit pays charges designed for a new detached house.

Pair it with

  • Pre-approved building plans
  • Small-builder financing
  • Anti-displacement property-tax relief
  • Accessible design incentives

Measure whether it works

  • Projects by housing type
  • Net homes added
  • Small-builder participation
  • Geographic distribution of permits

In practice

What this reform looks like on the ground.

Portland, OregonMajor provisions effective August 1, 2021; expanded July 2022

Residential Infill Project

Portland legalized duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and other middle-housing options, then expanded the package in a second implementation step.

Lesson

Real reform often arrives in stages. Portland first opened the door, then widened it.

Portland Residential Infill Project (opens in a new tab)
Raleigh, North CarolinaAugust 2021 through August 2022

Stepped missing-middle reform era

Raleigh followed its ADU reform with missing-middle legalization, citywide parking reform, and a second middle-housing and transit-oriented package.

Lesson

A city does not have to solve everything in one vote. Raleigh kept removing barriers as it learned what still stood in the way.

Raleigh adopted text changes (opens in a new tab)

Why support it?

The evidence behind the solution.

Established evidence

Scarcity turns neighbors into bidders.

When more households want in than there are homes available, the highest bidders win. Everyone else pays more, accepts less, moves farther away, doubles up, or leaves.

Keep in mind: Construction costs, incomes, interest rates, amenities, and migration matter too. Housing supply is not the only force—it is the part local policy can directly obstruct or enable.
Strong evidence

A city cannot build homes it has made illegal.

Legalize real projects across enough land and builders respond. Auckland did this at city scale and saw a large permitting boom; narrower reforms have usually delivered less.

Keep in mind: Permission is necessary but not sufficient. Financing, land, construction costs, approval time, and demand determine whether newly legal homes are actually built.
Strong evidence

Legal on paper is not the same as buildable in practice.

A reform can promise density and still bury it under tiny maps, parking ratios, setbacks, fees, hearings, and delay. Good reform makes ordinary projects legal, feasible, and predictable.

Keep in mind: Chicago's narrow reform produced no detectable building increase in its early years. That helps show why scale, feasibility, and follow-through matter.
Figure from the paper

Figure 2 · Living space after upzoning

The strongest post-reform increases appear after roughly five years, especially for large upzonings.

Published three-panel event study comparing all treated, small-upzoning, and large-upzoning effects on living space with two estimators and confidence intervals.

Source: Büchler & Lutz (2024), Figure 2; PDF p. 8.

Read carefully: The outcome is living space, and local quality-adjusted rent differences were not statistically clear.

Figure from the paper

Figure 6 · Estimated treatment effects on dwelling permits

The estimated effects become positive after the reform for both attached and detached homes.

Published three-panel event study showing estimated treatment effects on all, attached, and detached dwelling permits before and after Auckland's upzoning.

Source: Greenaway-McGrevy & Phillips (2023), Figure 6; PDF p. 34.

Read carefully: The outcome is permits per statistical area, not completed homes; the control comparison relies on non-upzoned areas.

Keep exploring