We previously reported on an important study confirming land‑use deregulation— code changes that allow greater density — does not drive housing supply or produce more affordable units. In fact, in cities like Austin, these policies can actually make housing less affordable. Read the report here.
Today, we turn to a new city‑generated document entitled “Missing Middle and Mixed‑Use Zoning Study.” We examine several of its “key findings” and premises regarding “missing-middle” housing and find that many of them conflict not only with the recent academic evidence but with the facts on the ground. Taken together, these claims represent a stale narrative aimed at reviving residential code amendments with densities of four to six units on a standard-sized lot (5,750 sf) – density levels closely resembling the “transition zones” (proposed in the 2019 Land Development Code Revision) – the successor to “transect zones” (proposed in CodeNEXT).
“Key findings” and premises of the City’s missing-middle proposal and our response:
1. “Among the most significant barriers are the code’s outdated base zoning districts, which remain substantially unchanged since the code was adopted over four decades ago.”
This is false. The City has acknowledged that “the current code has been amended hundreds of times since its initial adoption in the mid-1980s.” This includes amendments to its base districts. H.O.M.E. alone changed the minimum lot size, the number of units, the setbacks, and the building coverage in the most prevalent single-family districts. Minimum parking standards and maximum occupancy limits were eliminated. Compatibility standards, which, when triggered, affected heights and setbacks on multi-family and commercial lots, were significantly weakened. Under a new state law, the uses, setbacks, FAR, and heights allowable on commercial properties have been changed. And, applied overlays, density bonus provisions, and E-TODS override base district regulations. The City acknowledges much of this in the document, but still clings to the tired “outdated,” “substantially unchanged” code narrative to justify actions it wants to take.
2. “Existing base zones in the Austin Land Development Code generally limit housing choice to single-family homes or large apartment complexes.”
False, again. Currently, up to three units are allowed in SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 and may be separate structures, duplexes, townhomes, or triplexes on standard-sized lots. On a 7,200sf or greater lot, four-unit “stacked flats” favored by staff are allowable. On a 10,000 sf MF-3 lot, 8 units could be built, even without density bonuses. All of these are considered “missing middle” housing, all are available today, and none qualify as “large apartment complexes.”
The staff’s blame-the-code case rests almost entirely on a single chart claiming that a higher percentage (6%) of missing middle housing was built before 1984 than after (<1%). But their analysis does not control for demographic, economic, or cultural changes, interest‑rate and property‑value shifts, or major societal shocks (e.g., COVID‑19). Ignoring all of those factors and the resulting market preferences, then attributing building outcomes solely to the 1984 code to justify further deregulation is analytically unsound and risks “another ‘great planning disaster.’” Staff claims that the 1984 code favors single-family homes (and large apartments), but their chart shows that by percentage, fewer single-family homes were built post-1984 (38%) than pre-1984 (49%). It’s not the code.
Housing choices are driven by builders, developers, and investors responding to demand—not by the code – a point the City implicitly concedes: “While HOME reforms have allowed more homes [including townhomes] in single‑family neighborhoods, builders mainly construct detached homes that remain unaffordable for many.” That acknowledgment confirms the study cited above: market demand and profit motives, not zoning, determine what gets built and at what price. Granting entitlements for more units on single‑family lots will lead to higher property values and taxes, reduce affordability, and increase displacement.
If adopted, the missing middle districts would be available for area-wide “city-initiated rezoning” or by property owners. Staff has even suggested that “[g]oing forward, the new base zones could be used instead of the current ones.”
The community deserves policies grounded in reality. Instead, the city continues to peddle preordained land-use policy “choices,” wrapped in clichés, non-facts, and discredited theories. This leaves us with poor policy and deepens public distrust in city processes.
We need affordable housing, not area-wide expensive redevelopment. And we deserve land-use policies supported by the community.