I travel nationwide for work. When I have time, I like to drive through neighbourhoods* I would consider living in if I had to relocate to that city. Even before I became aware of the term "the missing middle," I found myself drawn to neighbourhoods* that had missing middle structures. I would send my spouse photos of nice-looking 6–8 unit apartment buildings with comments about how cool it would be to have such an option nearby.
I live in a large subdivision/township near the Houston, TX area (125,000+ people) that is reasonably walkable and bikeable. However, for the most part, townhomes are shunted off to the edges, as if only poor, gross people want something smaller and UGLY. That's the problem—affordable townhomes that were built on the more affordable side are UGLY. Meanwhile, some really nice-looking townhomes are closer to the township's desired amenities, but they cost 2–3 times the median house price for the area and are at least twice the size of the smaller townhomes.
I don’t want the missing middle anywhere near me either—if it’s UGLY.
I think the CMHC offers attractive designs for multi-unit structures, appropriately sized for the neighborhood—at least in the illustrations. Make the missing middle scaled correctly AND NOT UGLY, and people might be more receptive.
*Spelled in solidarity with our northern neighbours.
Lloyd, an element you didn't address is that when doubling or even quadrupling the population in an area (neighbourhood) and reducing the size of yards (or gardens, if you are reading from the UK), there needs to be a commensurate increase in communal space—parks, playgrounds, and sports fields. Oh, and where do the upper-floor residents securely store their bicycles?
I agree that is a problem that should be addressed. I turned my house into two units and rented upstairs to my daughter's family, and there are now 3 e-bikes, a big cargo bike, kids bikes and strollers taking up half of what was the garage before.
I live in a tiny vertical 1867 house that was moved to this downtown lot in 1918. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for developers to acquire low-rise multi-unit buildings or large single family homes, let them deteriorate enough so they have to be torn down and replaced by new ticky tacky housing, that is never really affordable.
My neighbourhood should be walkable; but in the years that I have lived here, walking has become far less pleasant. Construction sites make it difficult to use the sidewalks, trees have been removed to facilitate construction, small neighbourhood businesses have been lost because they were moved for reconstruction and the rent in newer buildings is too high for mom and pops.
New construction is always more expensive than expected and so many of the new units are never rented to real people who live in the neighbourhood. Even if a few of the units are designated as affordable housing, the rent is fixed for a period of a couple of years, which does not work for
retired folk.
The loss of mixed use housing and mixed commercial development makes the area feel less safe and discourages walking. Many of units in the newer midrise apartments in my neighbourhood are always dark and have no curtains...We joke that many are unused air BnB or owned by money launderers or some other absent owner.
The issue of affordable housing is not just one of construction of new stock. We may need to rethink our taxing policies to discourage the destruction of existing structures that are capable of being refurbished or revamped without destroying the surrounding neighbourhoods for long periods of time. We also may want to offer financing support for revamping or retrofitting existing buildings .
To ramp up the availability of affordable housing quickly, I think we need to really consider revamping and refurbishing existing structures into affordable housing which is located in established neighbourhoods with small businesses and services.
Calgary is struggling to rezone in order to accommodate density. Instead of selecting a few promising neighbourhoods, with the demographics and mindset to adopt this thinking, city hall proposed it for the entire city. It’s been met with extreme push back as one would expect. The concerns were logical, and it seemed that no one thought of things like utility infrastructure etc. When good ideas meet bureaucratic incompetence, progress doesn’t happen. It’s great to create a book of ideas, execution is a whole other matter.
Looking forward to the full sets of drawings. Notice that there are no roof over hangs. Hoping to see how the venting for the roofs work for these buildings, and how storm water management is addressed without downspouts.
I took a look at all the plans on the site and I'm really impressed with the designs. One problem; other than the ADRU's, you can't build a single one of them. I've spent my morning going over minor variance applications for a hearing in two days and these designs either don't comply with zoning bylaws nor would they be supported by city planning staff. The reason is parking. Without onsite parking I'm really, really depressed & sad to say this is an exercise in futility.
An excellent idea for housing. It's also great that municipalities are more 'friendly' to off-site and modular housing solutions assisting the housing industry into the 21st century. Modular technology has been around for decades but only now becoming more visible and supported. Standardized design supports modular production and speeds-up the review/approval and production processes. Good article Lloyd!
I think house plan books (minus I believe any official endorsement or requirement) were not uncommon even in the early 1800s, and the various companies offering catalogs of the house kits they could sell you went beyond the Sears packages. But I really appreciate the almost organic nature of communities that were not 'redeveloped' at some point during the 20th and 21st Century but instead saw their homes and places of business evolve and be repurposed over the years, often more than once. Arlington County, Virginia, is still struggling with what policies to put in place to encourage more multifamily housing in a county where there are only 'brown' building sites which is a driving factor behind the spread of McMansions. I saw recently that one realtor described my neighborhood as one of many 'luxury' homes and the newest one nearby is being offered at over $2 million. Unfortunately, this building trend is running counter to some of the country's other policies, for example now charging a fee for properties that have too large a percentage of impermeable surface creating problem water runoff. I tried to argue that our mortarless paver block sidwalk and drive shouldn't count as impermeable and lost at the first hurdle - even with drains that send the water to our backyard rain pond.
Some very nice images & some great designs. A couple of observations:
- (petty observation warning) I see too much space given over to circulation, better to have common entries / stairs to reduce circulation
- Several of the designs shown work only in pre WWii neighbourhoods with alleys
- Due to lack of alleys, the reality I see monthly at our Committee of Adjustment are lots being assembled & severed into tiny lots with the same semi detached garages with a sliver of a home attached resulting in essentially very ugly car centric townhouse complex without the charm of a townhouse complex or a condo corporation to keep up with maintenance, landscaping & snow removal
I travel nationwide for work. When I have time, I like to drive through neighbourhoods* I would consider living in if I had to relocate to that city. Even before I became aware of the term "the missing middle," I found myself drawn to neighbourhoods* that had missing middle structures. I would send my spouse photos of nice-looking 6–8 unit apartment buildings with comments about how cool it would be to have such an option nearby.
I live in a large subdivision/township near the Houston, TX area (125,000+ people) that is reasonably walkable and bikeable. However, for the most part, townhomes are shunted off to the edges, as if only poor, gross people want something smaller and UGLY. That's the problem—affordable townhomes that were built on the more affordable side are UGLY. Meanwhile, some really nice-looking townhomes are closer to the township's desired amenities, but they cost 2–3 times the median house price for the area and are at least twice the size of the smaller townhomes.
I don’t want the missing middle anywhere near me either—if it’s UGLY.
I think the CMHC offers attractive designs for multi-unit structures, appropriately sized for the neighborhood—at least in the illustrations. Make the missing middle scaled correctly AND NOT UGLY, and people might be more receptive.
*Spelled in solidarity with our northern neighbours.
Thanks Lloyd. Can Wisconsin become Canada's next province?
You can join Northwestern Ontario in separating from Ontario. 😂
Lloyd, an element you didn't address is that when doubling or even quadrupling the population in an area (neighbourhood) and reducing the size of yards (or gardens, if you are reading from the UK), there needs to be a commensurate increase in communal space—parks, playgrounds, and sports fields. Oh, and where do the upper-floor residents securely store their bicycles?
I agree that is a problem that should be addressed. I turned my house into two units and rented upstairs to my daughter's family, and there are now 3 e-bikes, a big cargo bike, kids bikes and strollers taking up half of what was the garage before.
I live in a tiny vertical 1867 house that was moved to this downtown lot in 1918. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for developers to acquire low-rise multi-unit buildings or large single family homes, let them deteriorate enough so they have to be torn down and replaced by new ticky tacky housing, that is never really affordable.
My neighbourhood should be walkable; but in the years that I have lived here, walking has become far less pleasant. Construction sites make it difficult to use the sidewalks, trees have been removed to facilitate construction, small neighbourhood businesses have been lost because they were moved for reconstruction and the rent in newer buildings is too high for mom and pops.
New construction is always more expensive than expected and so many of the new units are never rented to real people who live in the neighbourhood. Even if a few of the units are designated as affordable housing, the rent is fixed for a period of a couple of years, which does not work for
retired folk.
The loss of mixed use housing and mixed commercial development makes the area feel less safe and discourages walking. Many of units in the newer midrise apartments in my neighbourhood are always dark and have no curtains...We joke that many are unused air BnB or owned by money launderers or some other absent owner.
The issue of affordable housing is not just one of construction of new stock. We may need to rethink our taxing policies to discourage the destruction of existing structures that are capable of being refurbished or revamped without destroying the surrounding neighbourhoods for long periods of time. We also may want to offer financing support for revamping or retrofitting existing buildings .
The National Historic Trust has done a series of studies that support the notion that blocks of older, smaller buildings are essential to sustainability and robust local economies. The studies can be downloaded here https://cdn.savingplaces.org/2023/07/14/14/23/09/514/NTHP_PGL_OlderSmallerBetter_ReportOnly.pdf
To ramp up the availability of affordable housing quickly, I think we need to really consider revamping and refurbishing existing structures into affordable housing which is located in established neighbourhoods with small businesses and services.
Calgary is struggling to rezone in order to accommodate density. Instead of selecting a few promising neighbourhoods, with the demographics and mindset to adopt this thinking, city hall proposed it for the entire city. It’s been met with extreme push back as one would expect. The concerns were logical, and it seemed that no one thought of things like utility infrastructure etc. When good ideas meet bureaucratic incompetence, progress doesn’t happen. It’s great to create a book of ideas, execution is a whole other matter.
Looking forward to the full sets of drawings. Notice that there are no roof over hangs. Hoping to see how the venting for the roofs work for these buildings, and how storm water management is addressed without downspouts.
This is a subject I have been discussing forever, including in this post with my favourite title of any I ever wrote https://www.treehugger.com/all-about-eaves-4858229
Yes, that's what I noticed too; they forgot the overhangs. Makes me think of drinking after having your face frozen at the dentist...
I took a look at all the plans on the site and I'm really impressed with the designs. One problem; other than the ADRU's, you can't build a single one of them. I've spent my morning going over minor variance applications for a hearing in two days and these designs either don't comply with zoning bylaws nor would they be supported by city planning staff. The reason is parking. Without onsite parking I'm really, really depressed & sad to say this is an exercise in futility.
An excellent idea for housing. It's also great that municipalities are more 'friendly' to off-site and modular housing solutions assisting the housing industry into the 21st century. Modular technology has been around for decades but only now becoming more visible and supported. Standardized design supports modular production and speeds-up the review/approval and production processes. Good article Lloyd!
I think house plan books (minus I believe any official endorsement or requirement) were not uncommon even in the early 1800s, and the various companies offering catalogs of the house kits they could sell you went beyond the Sears packages. But I really appreciate the almost organic nature of communities that were not 'redeveloped' at some point during the 20th and 21st Century but instead saw their homes and places of business evolve and be repurposed over the years, often more than once. Arlington County, Virginia, is still struggling with what policies to put in place to encourage more multifamily housing in a county where there are only 'brown' building sites which is a driving factor behind the spread of McMansions. I saw recently that one realtor described my neighborhood as one of many 'luxury' homes and the newest one nearby is being offered at over $2 million. Unfortunately, this building trend is running counter to some of the country's other policies, for example now charging a fee for properties that have too large a percentage of impermeable surface creating problem water runoff. I tried to argue that our mortarless paver block sidwalk and drive shouldn't count as impermeable and lost at the first hurdle - even with drains that send the water to our backyard rain pond.
Some very nice images & some great designs. A couple of observations:
- (petty observation warning) I see too much space given over to circulation, better to have common entries / stairs to reduce circulation
- Several of the designs shown work only in pre WWii neighbourhoods with alleys
- Due to lack of alleys, the reality I see monthly at our Committee of Adjustment are lots being assembled & severed into tiny lots with the same semi detached garages with a sliver of a home attached resulting in essentially very ugly car centric townhouse complex without the charm of a townhouse complex or a condo corporation to keep up with maintenance, landscaping & snow removal
Incredible, thank you