6
WHAT’S MISSING FROM MISSING-MIDDLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS by By Joshua Zinder, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP Managing Partner, JZA+D
H
ow do people want to live? This is the question that professionals in the housing sector grapple with daily. Some of the answers to this question come easily: affordably, comfortably, safely. The real issues arise when we attempt to produce new housing and upgrade the existing stock within the current regulatory and economic frameworks. Compromises are made, and certain essential answers to the “how” question remain unaddressed. After presenting virtually on the topic “Finding the Missing Middle” as part of the most recent AIA Tri-State Conference, the discussions that followed began to suggest that we as architects, however well-intentioned, can be too focused on the wrong measures of outcomes. The efforts of all housing sector professionals—developers, planners, lenders, everyone—tend toward missing-middle housing solutions that deliver X number of units, within monthly rental range Y, for location Z. While meeting targets for X, Y, and Z is important, what’s missing in the middle is not just affordable units—it’s community. The pandemic has thrown the need for a sense of community into sharp relief. Residents in mid-rise and high-rise developments might pass two dozen identical doors between the elevator and their apartment and never see another face—and now, for many, the prospect of meeting a neighbor in that hallway evokes fear of infection and illness. Likewise, suburban homeowners shuttle between home and work without even cursory social interaction—if they leave home at all. This was the reality before, to some degree, which COVID has intensified. Filling the missing middle appropriately addresses this issue, introducing opportunities for social interaction by increasing PAGE 26 | DEC ‘21 | JAN ‘22
density in walkable locations. Some solutions will create new walkable neighborhoods from the ground up, while others will enhance existing ones. The best designs and development strategies will include open spaces or amenities, or both, to create or enhance socially dynamic settings that appeal to so many, which we refer to in our practice as “pockets of urbanity.” These communal, social settings are indeed widely desired. Both millennials and the emergent Generation Z, long believed to be hyper-focused on living and working in urban centers, turn out to be primarily interested in a socially dynamic location and will happily trade an expensive apartment in New York for a walkable, and culturally and economically diverse neighborhood in Princeton, for example, with entertainment, shopping, dining, and needed amenities steps away from home. The problem, of course, is that few such places currently exist. Demand is high, which means rentals are often unattainable for entry-level residents. Everyone benefits when folks like teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other such community linchpins can live in the same neighborhood as more affluent professionals. This kind of diversity is itself a desirable outcome, strengthening the ties that undergird our social contract, and it also counteracts the potential for economic and cultural stagnation that many communities face. It’s natural for people to resist change, but some towns face an uncertain future unless they begin to evolve. Grassroots residential organizations focused on preserving the status quo would do well to pivot to partnering with housing professionals, planning officials, and develop-
