EE45 "Missing Middle" v. Single-Family Arguments Don't Hold Up

Guest Essay by Steve Test and Paul Breslin

There is a national trend of urban planners loosening or removing zoning limits on height and density and to eliminate or reduce zoning for detached, single-family homes to allow building more multi-unit residential buildings, so called “missing middle” housing. Minneapolis, Austin, and Houston, as well as the states of Oregon and California, are among the jurisdictions that have enacted these policies. All of these jurisdictions are distinctly different from the much smaller, land-constrained, built-out city of Evanston. The cities' housing stock has a much higher percentage of detached, single-family homes: Minneapolis 45.3%, Austin 46.5%, Houston 46.6%. Evanston: 31.8%.

The first draft of the EE45 Comprehensive Plan called for elimination of single-family home zoning and allowing by-right building up to four-unit residential buildings on any R1/R2 lot. In fact, significant portions of the language in the first draft could have come straight from many of the rezoning projects in other parts of the country. Much of that language has been removed from subsequent drafts, but significant vestiges are still there. So let’s examine those vestiges and the ideology that spawned them.

Missing Middle
The latest draft of the comprehensive plan, true to its origins in the “zoning reform” movement, on page 86 mentions “missing middle" housing (without quotes). Middle housing is defined as housing sizes that bridge between single-family homes and large apartment buildings. So duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, live-work buildings and courtyard apartment buildings of a few stories and up to twenty units would be middle housing.

However, the data on page 86 and at Figure 6 (Housing Stock) on page 88 in the draft plan does not support the claim of an Evanston “missing middle.” The data shows that Evanston’s middle housing is 38% of the housing stock, more than the 32% represented by single-family detached homes. It is more accurate to say Evanston has a “missing single-family detached home” problem. The descriptions of the wards, in a narrative fashion, also debunk Evanston’s “missing middle” myth. All nine wards are described in glowing terms as having a wide range of housing types, many of which comprise middle housing. We cannot have a “missing middle” problem if the middle is not missing.

Elimination of Single Family Home Zoning
The rezoning movement maintains that eliminating single-family zoning will allow building of multi-unit buildings up to fourplexes, part of the middle housing category, thus producing more housing that will drive housing prices down. However, new duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes built in previous R1 zones cannot attract subsidies and professional management that permit them to be offered at reduced cost. They will replace the lowest cost single-family homes with market-rate, luxury units that produce the most profit for the developer.

The new units may be less expensive than a new single-family detached home built on that site, but they will cost more than 30% of the income of the average citizen, the usual definition of “affordability.” These new market rate units will be owned by high-income residents, thus accelerating gentrification. Eliminating R1 zones will not produce affordability. In fact, the average cost of housing will go up as low-cost single-family homes are replaced by multiple expensive units. The cost of housing in these areas will go up, not down. Demonstrating the wisdom of the people, EE45 comprehensive plan survey data (see Chart 38 on page 170) shows that changing zoning is very unpopular with Evanston citizens.

Why Is This Still in the Comprehensive Plan?
So despite the fact that the comprehensive plan’s data and commentary expose the “missing middle” myth, city staff writing the plan say we have a “missing middle” problem that requires zoning changes. Why is that? Is it because city staff and the mayor have been captured by a trendy Big Idea recommending elimination of single-family zoning and allowing multi-unit housing to be pursued everywhere, regardless of different facts and conditions in a specific place?

Evanston is an outlier in several respects: its population density of 10,800 sq/mi exceeds that of cities where pervasive upzoning has become policy (Minneapolis 7,962/sq/mi; Austin 3,006 sq/mi; Houston 3,598 sq/mi). It also has a smaller area (7.8 sq/mi) and has constraining boundaries with Skokie, Wilmette, Chicago, and Lake Michigan. Also, as mentioned above, it has a much lower percentage of single-family detached houses (31.8% vs. percentages in the mid-40s). We need a plan for this city, as it actually exists, not one for Anywhere, USA.

Conclusion
We ask the City Council to direct staff to remove from the comprehensive plan all the references, inferences, suggestions and hints derived from the “missing middle” housing myth and elimination or interrogation of single-family home zoning. The data in the surveys and the actual conditions of the housing stock in Evanston do not support those statements in the comprehensive plan.

Steve Test and Paul Breslin are, respectively, 3rd Ward and 7th Ward Evanston residents. This essay is adapted and posted with permission from remarks planned for presentation to the Evanston City Council on June 24, 2025.