Despite Multiple States Abolishing Single-Family-Only Zoning, Very Few Duplexes and Triplexes Are Being Built
A new report illustrates that the middle of the housing market is still missing.

Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes remain a small fraction of overall home construction despite several states' passage of reforms legalizing this type of "missing middle" housing in all residential neighborhoods.
"Multifamily development projects have been growing in size," wrote Apartment List researchers Chris Salviati and Rob Warnock in a new report parsing U.S. Census Bureau building permit data. "From 1990 to 2009, 18 percent of multifamily units permitted were in buildings with two to four units; from 2010 to 2022, this type of 'missing middle' housing accounted for just 8 percent of multifamily building permits."
In 2022, local jurisdictions permitted 52,735 homes in two- to four-unit buildings. That's a paltry 3 percent of overall construction. It's an increase in raw numbers from the 2010s when the country was typically permitting under 40,000 missing middle units per year but a drop in the share of permitting for new housing. That drop is partially explained by a boom in larger multifamily construction.
Still, these permitting figures also speak to the slow start, and often disappointing results, of missing middle reforms that have passed thus far.
Three states now, Oregon, California, and Maine, have passed bills allowing at least duplexes on almost all residential land statewide. On a local level, Minneapolis garnered a lot of attention for being the first jurisdiction in the country to eliminate single-family-only zoning in late 2018.
Minneapolis implemented its reforms in 2020. Portland, Oregon, implemented state-level reforms in August 2021. (Other jurisdictions in the state had until June 2022 to act.) California's S.B. 9, which legalized duplexes and lot splits, went into effect in January 2022.
(Maine gave municipalities until July 2023 to implement that state's missing middle reforms.)
This means we have at least a year's worth of these reforms being in effect in most places that have adopted them. The evidence so far suggests that they're doing little to boost housing production.
In January, the University of California, Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing and Innovation found that construction activity related to S.B. 9 was "limited or non-existent" in a survey of 13 cities where those kinds of projects should have been most feasible. Los Angeles approved just 38 S.B. 9 applications for duplexes and lot splits. San Francisco approved only four.
Things are going somewhat better in Portland, Oregon. From August 2021 to February 2022, missing middle reforms led to 127 new units in formerly single-family-only zones, of which 36 units were accessory dwelling units.
The abolition of single-family-only zoning in Minneapolis led to the construction of 104 new duplex and triplex units in the first two years post-reform.
The modest increase in housing production can be largely explained by how marginal many of these missing middle reforms have been.
Often, cities will legalize missing middle housing without allowing the new multi-unit buildings to be much larger than the single-family homes they'd replace. That means a builder faces all the costs of tearing down an old unit without the ability to add much additional revenue-generating floor space.
One explanation for Portland's relative success at building missing middle housing is that it provides a schedule of density bonuses whereby duplexes can be larger than single-family homes, triplexes can be larger than duplexes, and so forth.
Nevertheless, all these structures have to be smaller than the single-family structures Portland's zoning code used to allow.
Another problem facing missing middle home construction is a whole thicket of nonzoning rules and practices that assume new construction will either be single-family homes or larger apartment buildings.
For instance, California's S.B. 9 legalized duplexes and lot splits on single-family zoned properties. But missing middle builders report that some utility companies in the state will only allow one metered connection per single-family property.
It's a similar problem in Portland. The state has both legalized fourplexes and expedited the process for dividing single-family properties into multiple fee simple lots.
That latter reform should theoretically expand the market for fourplexes, as they can be chopped up and sold like traditional single-family homes. (The alternative is that people have to rent them or buy into a condo association.)
But existing requirements that each individual property comes with a separate water line can make these lot divisions both physically impractical and financially infeasible on the city's typically sized single-family lot.
"We don't know if it's going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage," Eric Thompson, a missing middle developer in Portland, told Reason last year. Each tap can also cost as much as $10,000. "That really acts as a tax."
The Terner Center report notes that everything from fees, building codes, and subdivision rules can also make S.B. 9–style duplexes difficult or infeasible to build. These headwinds can all surface in jurisdictions that are genuinely trying to implement state-level zoning reforms instead of cynically undermining them.
Missing middle reforms have been justified as a way of making housing more affordable. More units per property allow land costs to be split across a greater number of households. More supply overall will lower prices.
The Apartment List report underscores the truth of that latter statement.
"The nation's most expensive markets—e.g. New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles—demonstrate clearly how they got that way. Namely, by building new housing at extremely low levels for decades, in spite of booming demand," write Salviati and Warnock.
Those listed cities have far lower rates of per capita building than booming, more affordable Sunbelt metros like Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston.
A number of state legislatures are considering missing middle reforms this year. The fewer existing regulations they leave in place, the more they'll play their intended role in boosting housing supply.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe, Christian, the market is speaking, and the market would prefer single-family housing. That would be the most libertarian explanation as to why duplexes, triplexes, and four-unit housing isn't being built as much. Most people, if given the chance, would prefer 15-20 feet of air between them and their neighbors.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://autoincome66.pages.dev
came to say the same thing. In my town they built a subdivision that requires a person to build a second economical home. the lots haven't sold because not only is it hard enough to afford to build a single home let alone two and many home owners do not want the hassle of being a land lord and definately don't want to be a landlord to a house next door, renters are often assholes
So requirements to build a second home is the fault of the market and libertarian wishes? Sounds like city government rules to me.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link---------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Probably a requirement to get federal funding. Money that should stayed in the state in the first place.
This is the kind of shit the democrats have planned for the entire US…..
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
“The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.”
Having a home built is way beyond the average person. I always cringed when I used to originate loan for custom construction. The clients were always clueless, yet overconfident, and thought it was super easy to manage a home construction project. Especially when they always assume they can get their home built as fast as a contractor building his homes for resale. They can’t.
Suppliers and sub contractors always prioritize their regular customers, which isn’t the couple building their one time dream home, then they act surprised when their 4-5 month project takes a year to finish. And when they end up paying more interest and fees, it’s somehow my fault. That shit is part of why I only do business with commercial clients anymore. So much easier, and less entitled broads to deal with.
To say nothing of the 'going forward' issues they drudge up. Typical Reason "Landlords aren't part of the middle. They aren't even human. We've got poors. So, fuck 'em!" attitude.
WTF landlord or bank is going to pay to maintain water and sewer to a vacant property *or* turn water and sewer off to 3 other properties? Especially when, as indicated, they can buy the whole property and rent it whole or split it up as they see fit.
It's pretty obvious that the missing middle builders are trying to build to what their own (undesirable) conception of what the neighborhood should be.
That's possible. An alternate hypothesis (and one that's more likely in my opinion) is that the multi-family permitting option came with so many strings attached that the reform was ... Maybe "sham" is too strong a word but not actually a good deal.
When looking to rent a home. I would occasionally find a place with extremely low rent, amazing amounts of space, and great locations. Invariably when I showed up it was a duplex that forgot to list that fact on their rental advertisement.
What was interesting was that duplexes were not only cheaper than renting a house, but were also far cheaper than apartments. It appears that combining the disadvantages of both apartment living (lack of privacy) and renting a home (maintaining a yard and lack of amenities) is unappealing enough that it has to be priced into the rent to attract customers.
Just my personal experience, and one possible reason behind this phenomenon.
Excellent work, Mike. I admire your effort because I currently generate more than $36,000 each month from just one simple online business! I am aware that you may start earning a solid life en-10 online with as little as $29,000 and these are just basic internet operations tasks.
.
.
Click the link—————————————>>> GOOGLE WORK
Actually the bureaucratic nightmare of getting zoning variances goes further to explain this. Especially in big city suburbs where mobile homes are a rarity.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do, .for more information simply.
Open this link thank you......>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Frankly, I think city zoning codes are speaking, not the market. If the market was truly free to speak, and not just fake-free with these "reforms" that don't allow any increase in square feet and therefore don't carry any incentive to redevelop communities more efficiently, we'd probably get more housing that people can afford. Euclid v Ambler was the Supreme Court decision from the mid 1920s that set us on this path to development that's more expensive, less walkable and more car dependent.
A 2016 zoning map of Minneapolis shows to me why ‘housing’ reform is flawed and limited – and complicated. Single family zones tend to be large deserts of pure single family. The nearest commercial zones are a long way away – a drive to work or shopping or entertainment. There will be no increased residential development in the middle of those deserts because all it does is increase traffic to far-away destinations. Just as there will be no increased residential development in western Kansas if farmhouse zoning allows for 4-plexes.
I suspect most cities look like this. The denser residential zones abut commercial areas. Those are areas with multiple transport options and are high value. That is where increased residential development happens. Spread out the commercial areas (via mixed comm/res – what used to be called ‘Main Street’ or places that were formerly ‘streetcar stops’) and residential development will happen near those areas. But it just ain’t ever gonna happen in the middle of those deserts.
The US is in such a big hole with the post-WW2 development path it chose that the problems are no longer simple either. It really is fucking hard to get from here to there now.
good
Great comment. It is false that abolishing single family zoning has anything to do with the "missing middle." Of course, it may be sold that way but that's where it becomes a lie. The other lie, told in California, is that it will assist in creating affordable housing. California Law prohibits cities and counties from requiring additional units to be income restricted. Duh, the market decides. So very few, ADUs they call them, are affordable for low and very low income residents. This is where stupid comes in. The idea is that if you build enough product that supply and demand will kick in and the unit price will go down. Yet, over the past few generations California housing production has exploded and nothing is more affordable. Hell, they chase residents away and property value still is ultra high. No, duplexes, triplexes or ADUs in single family neighborhoods aren't going to make a dent. In nice neighborhoods they bring crowding and in poor neighborhoods they are future ghettos. Other than so-called "property rights" and housing reasons, the other reason for these terrible policies is to counteract "white privilege." Yes, I have heard it stated in public meetings by political staff. And here is where the real lie is. The single family neighborhoods most impacted are minority neighborhoods; this is exactly what the current data shows and will get worse. What it is: shameful.
Still, these permitting figures also speak to the slow start, and often disappointing results, of missing middle reforms that have passed thus far.
…
The evidence so far suggests that they’re doing little to boost housing production.
…
But existing requirements that each individual property comes with a separate water line can make these lot divisions both physically impractical and financially infeasible on the city’s typically sized single-family lot.
This is beginning to feel an awful lot like somebody (like Wile E. Coyote) pulling the trigger and then pointing the loaded shotgun at their own face trying to figure out why it won’t go off.
Just wait, when you’re living in a duplex with 11 other people sharing a communal toilet constructed for 4, you won’t be as worried about where the *other* missing middle went.
"You're right, more immigration will solve housing issue!"
You watch. Population decline could solve the housing issue, just like Student enrollment decline fixed class size issues in Seattle...
That could be achieved by thinning the democrat herd.
Communal toilet? What sort of duplex are you thinking of? No communal toilets in any duplex I have ever seen. You sure you not talking about weird British split homes (take existing home, split it, then make everyone share the toilet and kitchen) instead?
It’s probably part of some democrat plan to lower the standard of living for non elites. Democrat insiders (the people. like John Kerry) are always inventing new ways the rest of us can sacrifice to accommodate their stupid, baseless agendas. The problem is that the average leftist sees themselves as having a seat at the table.
Where no such seat exists.
What sort of duplex are you thinking of?
The kind delineated in the story where the developer says, "We don't know if it's going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage"
You sure you not talking about weird British split homes (take existing home, split it, then make everyone share the toilet and kitchen) instead?
Yeah, except new construction where the developer says, "We don't know if it's going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage"
Did you read the story? The part where the developer says "We don't know if it's going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage" because, if not I can quote them saying "We don't know if it's going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage" a couple more times so that it's clear that there will be fewer sewer main connections than individual domiciles, the implication being that someone's going to have to share.
'The kind delineated in the story where the developer says, “We don’t know if it’s going to be possible to get four sewer taps in that 50 feet of street frontage”'
Are you aware that it's possible to connect more than one toilet to one residential sewage line?
legalizing and creating demand not same.
Had Reason reported that housing prices were dropping all over America, and from flyoverville to Urban sophisticate-central tri and octoplexes were springing up all over creation, THEN I'd have been surprised.
Next up: The prisons are still overflowing despite marijuana legalization.
By the way, this is point on the classic escalator of policy-making.
I think policymakers are already aware that the hyper-dense sleep pod development isn't happening as fast as they'd like, so this is the new, latest hip trend amongst your fellow Urban Planners. And fyi, this is a GLOBAL movement amongst urban planners and yep, you guessed it, straight the fuck out of the WEF. Oh, and it's REAL popular with normies.
What, Reason writers parroting the WEF leftist? That's almost as common as days ending in y.
Maybe duplex and triplex homes aren't a desireable solution to the missing middle problem. In my area there are a lot of little houses, the style is called "cape cod". A ton of these went up in the years after WWII to address housing shortages. The nice thing about them is that they are affordable and you have your own yard and a few feet between you and your neighbors. The problem, as I was told by a builder of homes in my area, is that it is not profitable enough to build small homes. The cost of building homes has gone up. If you create a solution, in this case allowing multi family units, but that solution is unpopular and doesn't address the actual issue, don't be surprised when your solution flops.
Sorry, we're not interested in affordable single family homes, we want less affordable decaplexes. The goal here is to eliminate the nuclear family. That's the goal. Affordable housing is the fig leaf we're using to disguise that.
Yes the goal is to eliminate nuclear families. JHC do you really believe this shit?
https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1635633773143371779?t=qd3w4raZ6UCqIidc9J95Vg&s=19
NEW: Hundreds of Stanford students lined the halls yesterday to protest the law school’s dean, Jenny Martinez, for apologizing to Kyle Duncan, the judge shouted down last week.
The students effectively subjected Martinez to an intimidating walk of shame.
[Thread]
Without reading the link, what are the students protesting against here. Too much free speech or not enough?
They're protesting the apology, so too much free speech, not enough kowtowing to the marxist DEI narratives.
Too bad college administrators are so gutless. That Dean should hire some veteran Pinkertons to straighten those Little Trotskys out. With their nightsticks, which contrary to what the name suggests, are just as effective in the daytime.
In 8th grade, one of my classmates father had been a cop during the 1970's and gave our class a presentation on his involvement in some riots that occurred downtown at the state college. It was quite eye opening to realize that the cops had gathered up anyone willing to fight and just laid into the hippies. It was just a big melee and he was quite proud of his involvement. Seems like they don't do this anymore.
Censorship Double-Down is the current Ruling Class model the poor kids know nothing else
Any man who attempts to subvert our HOA will be dealt with...harshly.
There is an issue I don't think was discussed. If you are an owner and occupant of a 2,3,4-plex, you have to deal with renters living next to you. This becomes a real problem if you need to evict. Eviction regulations and other personal issues make this very difficult or even dangerous.
Especially in a blue state that shits on landlords. I live in one such state (Washington). I no longer invest in any income property with a residential component in Washington. Idaho is much better.
You investing in rental property doesn't do shit to increase supply of rental property.
it most certainly does. if an end user buys and lives in it never gets into the rental pool. if you mean buying an existing rental then it does too...it keeps a prop in the pool. perhaps you mean buying an existing tenanted duplex or other multifamily property?
I briefly lived in a triplex that I own. I had a property manager deal with the tenants. They thought I was just another tenant.
I started earning $350/hour in my free time by completing tasks with my laptop that i got from this company I stumbled upon online...Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site
Thanks a lot Here...................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The condo market is saturated
So too are apartments, although rent remains sky high
Very few families who ca afford to want to share a yard or building with others
So there’s very little demand
Time for government to step in and mandate that all families must live in a multiplex shared with at least one other bipoc family and another where both parents are of the same gender or have switched genders
It’s been at most a few years in most of these places and in the middle of pandemic. It’s too soon to see what effect zoning changes will have.
Two associated factors are construction costs (which are rising) and the strength of the well-paid segment of the job market.
If construction costs are so high to exceed the market price for a comparable home, little construction will happen. If well-paid jobs aren’t be created and attracting people to a city, demand for new homes will be reduced as well.
With the large minimum lot sizes in my area a $3 million luxury house is a better investment for a builder.
"Missing middle"? Maybe it's missing because nobody wants it?
as a builder i can tell you that the last year was a shit show for getting permits from asswipe building departments that were closed, materials went SKY HIGH, labor went bye bye as the feds paid for sloth. this was a poor year for metrics and i’ll tell you get ready for the coming flood of second residences (rentals) which will be the ONLY way folks can afford high cost markets. the ‘hoods they will be in will be HAMMERED traffic wise, parking wise, schools wise…nice hoods will be packed tighter than a japanese train
Here's another aspect to consider - many state and local governments have been successful in dictating what legal behavior you can't do in your own home, IF that home is not a single family house (i.e. duplex, condo, apartment, etc). Maybe some people don't want to find suddenly that the home they "own" is suddenly subject to a ban on something they like simply because that home shares a physical wall with someone else.