In each article, we cover each mistake one at a time, discuss why each is important to avoid, and provide graphic examples of both good and bad solutions, as well as even better approaches. This series is not meant to specifically call out certain cities, states, or efforts, but as constructive criticism designed to help more cities and states get it right. Missed the first article? Read our previous post to learn about MMH Mistake #1.
Missing Middle Mistake #5 - Not effectively addressing parking requirements as a barrier
The last mistake, and probably the hardest to tackle, is the issue of not effectively addressing parking requirements as a major barrier for Missing Middle Housing.
Would you rather have an affordable housing problem or a perceived parking problem?
I like to start the parking conversation with this creative mural from Banksy in Los Angeles that encourages community members to bring an open mind and get creative about parking.
Additonal Important Parking Related Points
- We’ve done a better job providing spaces for cars than people
- Cannot be for attainable/affordable housing and for high parking requirements
- You will not get Missing Middle Housing if you do not reduce or eliminate parking requirements.
I often say that from a decision maker or policy standpoint, a city or a county cannot be for affordable housing, but also still be requiring high off street parking. It’s just not possible in this day and age to have both; you need to pick.
The two primary issues with parking limitations are the physical constraints of the small to medium sized infill lots on which you cannot fit Missing Middle types and lots of parking, and secondarily, the impact it has on feasibility. Providing more parking leaves less space for development square footage and often adds additional costs, making these projects infeasible from a financial standpoint.
We’ve documented each of these types on a broad range of lot sizes, studying zero parking requirements, 1 space per unit, and 2 spaces per unit. In most places if you’re requiring more than one space per unit, you’re not able to fit Missing Middle types. In some higher value markets you might need to drop that to zero.
I’m a staunch advocate for eliminating parking requirements completely and letting the market decide that in individual communities. This is a great study that Fregonese Associates did for us that shows the direct impact of parking requirements on both rental and for sale housing.
You can see that in terms of the for sale product, the income required to purchase a “one space per unit” product increases to 36,000 dollars. For up to 2 spaces, it requires an income of $51,000. There’s a tremendous impact on affordability and attainability and it requires a lot of thoughtfulness.
Here are examples of projects that aren’t in a typical compact, walkable, urban environment with a lot of transit but are successfully delivering Missing Middle with low parking requirements.
Prairie Queen or Bungalows on the Lake: A Missing Middle Neighborhood
We master planned and developed the Missing Middle types for Urban Waters in the Omaha Metro. There’s 152 units built and another 150 in various stages of construction and entitlement. It’s been very successful, and the way we tackled parking here was to provide one off street parking space per unit, and then one+ parking spaces per unit by providing on street parking. It hasn’t impacted the feasibility or viability of this project. Residents like that they can park on the street in front of their unit and walk up to the front door.
This illustrated the feasibility of offering one parking space per unit, even in a suburban context, so it is viable to think about this in a broader range of contexts.
Culdesac Tempe: A Car-Free, Mobility Rich Community
This project started construction in late 2021 and there is a list of over 3,000 interested potential residents. 150 renters have put down deposits on the first 130 units and people are moving from across the country to join this car free environment.
It’s not downtown, but it is along a light rail station and relies on the delivery of mobility choices through car, bike and scooter share. There’s innovation happening within mobility and how technology delivers mobility that enables every community to be thinking about their reduction of parking requirements. The other cool aspect of that project is that it’s able to deliver 60% public space because it’s not providing space for cars but rather providing space for the residents.
Concluding Thoughts
Chris Nelson did a really great research effort for my book where he wrote a chapter on “Demographic Changes and Growing Preference for Missing Middle Housing.” One of his findings is that 62% of the homes built between now and 2040 would need to be Missing Middle Housing in order to meet demand. The sad reality is that we’re not going to shift that quickly and suddenly be delivering that much Missing Middle. However this reinforces how intense the demand is for designers, developers and cities to be responding to this need.
62% of the homes built between now and 2040 would need to be Missing Middle Housing in order to meet demand.
A couple of other interesting statistics that came out of the study include the fact that 80% of growth between 2018 and 2040 will be households without children. Once again smaller units will start to make a lot more sense.
Additionally, all new housing built between 2017 and 2040 would need to be in walkable locations to meet the demand for walkability. There’s growing demand and growing need for Missing Middle.
One of the first steps we encourage our municipal clients to take,whether it’s a mayor, city manager or planning director, is to complete a MMH Scan™ that identifies where a city should prioritize the application of Missing Middle types. It identifies the specific barriers in those areas and is a great first step that can inform a comprehensive plan.
A MMH Scan™ we did for Greenville, South Carolina was plugged directly into their ongoing comprehensive plan. We’ve also completed scans for Greensboro, North Carolina and Idaho Falls, Idaho. On the West Coast, we are undergoing a similar effort now in San Jose California as part of their Opportunity Housing Project. I encourage you to reach out about bringing a MMH Scan™ to your community to learn more about how it can benefit your area’s residents.
Are you interested in implementing Missing Middle Housing types in your city or town? One of the first steps we encourage you to take is to complete an MMH Scan™. This service identifies where a city should prioritize Missing Middle applications and identifies the specific barriers to implementation. It’s a significant first step that can inform a comprehensive plan. Contact us to learn more.