Missing Middle Housing Debate Blurs Affordability and Diversity Goals

The current debate surrounding "missing middle" housing, which promotes duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and small multifamily buildings, often conflates the distinct objectives of housing affordability and neighborhood diversity. Proponents argue that allowing these housing types will create more inclusive neighborhoods and increase affordability. However, this framing merges an economic problem – housing affordability – with a social policy goal – neighborhood diversity, which are not always aligned.

Housing affordability is fundamentally an economic issue, whereas neighborhood diversity is a social objective. While these two goals can sometimes overlap, they are not interchangeable. Treating them as equivalent has led to a housing discourse that promises lower prices but often prioritizes a different vision for community organization. This distinction is crucial for developing effective housing strategies.

The historical "American dream" was rooted in expansion, ownership, and the pursuit of opportunity through movement and building new communities, rather than fitting into existing expensive neighborhoods. Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis highlights how westward expansion, land ownership, and self-reliance shaped the American character. In housing, this translated to families moving outward, establishing new towns, and eventually owning homes.

Contemporary housing policy often deviates from this outward-looking approach. Instead of focusing on creating new areas where families can live affordably, many policymakers aim to retrofit high-demand neighborhoods to accommodate diverse income levels and preferences at below-market rates. This approach is characterized as a community organization strategy rather than a genuine housing affordability strategy, potentially failing to address the core economic challenge of rising housing costs.