Who’s afraid of the Missing Middle? Balancing preservation and change
Last month, the Los Angeles Department of City Planning released an updated draft of its Missing Middle Ordinances, to be followed by another public hearing on Thu., Oct. 1. The Missing Middle is described by the city as, “a new Los Angeles City Planning initiative to make both for-sale and rental housing more accessible by streamlining the city’s review and removing barriers to building smaller, neighborhood-scale homes—also known as ‘missing middle’ housing.”
Missing Middle, a housing concept coined by Daniel Parolek of the firm Opticos Design, is enthusiastically embraced by housing advocates because it adds what they describe as “gentle density” in quieter, walkable, residential neighborhoods, ostensibly between single-family residential streets and areas with higher urban densities. Greater Wilshire and its neighbor Miracle Mile are blessed with a wealth of historic Missing Middle housing including duplexes, triplexes, quads, and courtyard housing. In recent years, groups such as the L.A. Conservancy and Abundant Housing gave tours of our area’s Missing Middle housing, extolling their virtues.
City Planning embarked upon the drafting of the new Missing Middle ordinances driven by the success of its streamlined Accessory Dwelling Unit program and the desire to boost the effectiveness of, and come into alignment with, changes in two state housing laws, SB 9 and the Starter Home Revitalization Act, both designed to encourage small- and middle-scale for-sale housing options.
The Missing Middle Program is split into three components: Small Scale Homes, dealing with ADUs and S B9 provisions; Small Lot Subdivisions and Starter Homes, involving the creation of up to 10 lots or home developments to promote townhomes, bungalow courts, etc.; and state mandated Objective Design Standards, which will cover an array of new small-lot and starter home development, including in Historic Preservation Overlay Zones.These ordinances will usher in major changes, two of which stand out: allowing ADUs to be sold separately as condominiums, and a new “Starter Home Bonus Program,” allowing for the creation of small lot developments of six units on a single-family lot if projects adhere to objective design standards. This is opposed to the current standard of one ADU and one Junior ADU per single family lot.
While pro-housing advocates have been cheering these developments, others, even those generally supportive of housing, are wary that the program has moved from gentle density to something more intense, and not mandated by the state that threatens the balance of neighborhoods.
The Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council recently passed a motion opposing the Missing Middle Program, arguing that while the Neighborhood Council supported the development of attached for-sale townhouses as a transition from multifamily and commercial development to single-family zones as well as developments which respected the 15-foot front and rear setbacks and 25% open space, the motion states that the program “transforms a residential neighborhood program into a high-density commercial enterprise, ignoring the existing scale and cumulative impact on surrounding homes.”
The motion also took issue with the weakening of traditional setbacks, which it argued the city has the power to enforce. Other issues raised included the need to protect canopy trees and provide clear metrics for deep soil and open space which the six-unit developments would make difficult to preserve.
Lobbying has been intense as the Missing Middle Program works its way through the approval process, with neighborhood groups and housing advocates working furiously with city authorities to make the programs more flexible to allow for changes that comply with state mandates while preserving the character, landscapes, and historic resources of the impacted neighborhoods. In one example I have been involved with, historic preservation advocates and representatives from HPOZs have been working on solutions to ensure new development does not overwhelm existing historic structures in HPOZs and to make new construction align with its neighborhood by offering guidance through style guides which help builders understand prevailing architectural styles. Other groups, such as United Neighbors, are promoting design alternatives to the city’s which achieve the same goals and densities while respecting Los Angeles’ traditional housing types in an effort to better integrate them into their neighborhoods.
With the flood of new housing legislation coming out of Sacramento and affordability, particularly in housing, on top of voters’ minds, the writing is on the wall. Change and greater density, gentle or otherwise, are coming. The NIMBY playbook is done. But do we have to give into city plans which give rise to the modern equivalent of the bland, poorly constructed Long Beach “cracker-jack” box housing which ruined blocks and led to backlash? No. We can demand that this be done right. The preservation plans of our HPOZs lead the way on this, preparing historic districts for change and even improvement through good design guidelines and flexibility with new construction. We must keep up the pressure to ensure our voices are heard and the program is a success.
Los Angeles City Planning will conduct a Virtual Public Healing to receive public testimony on the proposed Missing Middle LA draft ordinances Thu., Oct. 1. An information session is from 6 to 6:30 p.m. The public hearing is from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Join at planning-lacity-org.zoom.us/s/82122818991, or dial 213-338-8477, Web ID: 821 2281 8991.
Category: Real Estate
