What constitutes the "missing middle"?

[someone123]

A pretty clear example would be something like Yonge and Eglinton. You can see a blob of highrises then it quickly drops off mostly to houses within a few blocks. It's not a smooth gradient with a large belt of smaller highrises then lowrise apartments, etc.

It's a well-defined phenomenon. It might apply better or worse to different areas. In Burnaby it was mostly older detached construction but most new construction is multi-unit and a lot of it, by land area at least, is lowrise.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Docere

And they're wrong even in that narrow sense. The older, inner neighbourhoods have plenty of housing that's not detached or high-rise.

I don't think he was talking about inner city in the sense of directly surrounding downtown such as the old city of Toronto and parts of York and East York. Those are usually the areas with the most middle scale housing. I thought he was referring to the yellow belt type places which are inner in terms of the overall metro area as contrasted with the outskirts.

[niwell]

As noted Missing Middle can mean a lot of things, and unfortunately it's been misconstrued online to a massive degree (similar to "stroads"). While reddit characterizes central Toronto as a "sea of SFHs" compared to Montreal the reality is that Old Toronto does in fact have a ton of it. I've only ever lived in "houses" that have 2-5 fully separate units and have likely had them since construction - albeit with less separation back then and no basement underpinning.

The problem is really that it was very hard to build new smallscale apartments/multiplexes until recently. This sector has exploded even if it may not be fast enough for some peoples liking. Hard to find recent stats but as of early 2025 the City had approved about 800 multiplex building permits since relaxation of zoning in 2023 (usually this means you are actually going to start construction) and another 1,000 laneway suites. This probably nets about 2,000 units accounting for a fair number of multiplex permits are really just expanding a 2-unit "house" into a 4-6 unit one by adding an extra storey and extending. The vast majority of these are in Old Toronto. Sure it's peanuts compared to the mega-complexes but the majority of the units are 2-3 bedroom and around 800 sq ft that a professional couple could live comfortably in - usually in very walkable areas.

I suspect this number has only increased in the past year as the dip in the market has helped these projects pencil out and anecdotally I'm seeing more and more construction in my area be multiplex as opposed to a gutjob to renovate a SFH. The City has also waived development charges on multiplex construction which helps - and makes sense as these don't really put the strain on City services that large buildings can, particularly in central areas.

On top of this there are quite a few low-rise apartments I've seen pop up on major streets that only take up one property with 10 or so units. They tend to fly under the radar but the redesignation on main streets (of which the definition has also expanded) has been huge. One can argue this should have happened years ago but I'll take it.

I was actually looking for examples I know in my area but google streetview is still a few years old and none of them are there yet. Which speaks to the above!

[Docere]

Well Toronto reddit thinks everyone over 65 should be forced to give up their houses "in order to solve the housing crisis."

[ssiguy]

I'm completely lost on those housing stats. How can just 14.7% of all housing in the City of Vancouver be SFH when 82% of the land area is zoned strictly for SFH? Any where in the City south of Broadway is basically a sea of SFH save a few little areas like Joyce, Marine, and Kerrisdale.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I'm completely lost on those housing stats. How can just 14.7% of all housing in the City of Vancouver be SFH when 82% of the land area is zoned strictly for SFH? Any where in the City south of Broadway is basically a sea of SFH save a few little areas like Joyce, Marine, and Kerrisdale.

None of the City of Vancouver is zoned for strictly SFH. (And the land area isn't relevant, as all the parks, and schools, and even some highways are zoned residential, so it's a meaningless statistic).

You can add a suite, or a laneway home, or both, everywhere, and lots of owners have. That's why, in 2021 only 14.7% of the occupied structures were detached and had only one household living in them.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Docere

Well Toronto reddit thinks everyone over 65 should be forced to give up their houses "in order to solve the housing crisis."

Toronto reddit looks at an aerial photo of a dense, Victorian row-house neighbourhood & demands that it be razed & replaced with new walk-up apartments that will have the same density & none of the charm of the existing neighbourhood. hah

[Docere]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto reddit looks at an aerial photo of a dense, Victorian row-house neighbourhood & demands that it be razed & replaced with new walk-up apartments that will have the same density & none of the charm of the existing neighbourhood. hah

They confuse form for substance.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Docere

Well Toronto reddit thinks everyone over 65 should be forced to give up their houses "in order to solve the housing crisis."

Were they actually saying it based on age? Or were they saying that empty nesters, aka individuals or couples who have homes big enough for a larger family because their kids have left, should move into something suitable for their household size to free up larger homes for families that need the space? I've heard a lot of people argue the latter, but not heard a single person argue the former. But then again I'm not on the Toronto sub reddit lol

[niwell]

No, there's a not unsubstantial portion of the Toronto subreddit that thinks every lowrise part of Old Toronto should be bulldozed tomorrow. They also don't realize that there are rentals that aren't in condo units and tend to think old houses are gross.

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto reddit looks at an aerial photo of a dense, Victorian row-house neighbourhood & demands that it be razed & replaced with new walk-up apartments that will have the same density & none of the charm of the existing neighbourhood. hah

Hah. There's a good chance you've seen my arguments on this which do end up in the positive on upvotes but nowhere near as high as the ones demanding their destruction!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto reddit looks at an aerial photo of a dense, Victorian row-house neighbourhood & demands that it be razed & replaced with new walk-up apartments that will have the same density & none of the charm of the existing neighbourhood. hah

Originally Posted by Docere

They confuse form for substance.

Except, the claim that the density would be the same is completely untrue. I've heard this false claim spread around for years now and I'm not sure of the exact source but it's probably down to comparisons at the neighbourhood or borough scale which capture a lot of other stuff like highrises which skew the density. But if you look at actual census tract data that compare the inner city Toronto row-house areas without any highrises with Montreal plex areas, the density difference is fairly pronounced. A few examples below. In short, while it's fair to say that having lower density, less urban development is worth it to preserve the historic built form and charm, then fine. I'd mostly agree with you. But to claim there's no difference in density is just fiction.

Census Tract - Density in square km (streets that border the census tract)

Toronto

5350058.00 - 9,781.3km2 (Grace-Harbord-Bathurst-College)


5350042.00 - 9,028.4km2 (College-Grace-Dundas-Dovercourt)


5350095.00 - 9,253.5km2 (Bloor-Dovercourt-Ossington-Dupont+)


5350097.01 - 10,342.2km2 (Bloor-Dufferin-Wallace-BarrieLine)



Montreal

4620147.00 - 17,271.1km2 (Papineau-Rachel-Lanaudiere-Mont-Royal)


4620158.00 - 15,152.0km2 (Saint_Joseph-Christphe_Colomb-Mont_Royal-Lanaudiere)


4620161.00 - 14,234.4km2 (Saint_Denis-Saint_Laurent-Villeneuve-Mont_Royal)


4620236.00 - 16,490.3km2 (Saint_Hubert-Jarry-Saint_Denis-Gounod)

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810001401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1829
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recen...a_ct-rmr_ar_sr/index2021-eng.cfm?year=21

[Five Four]

I generally consider the "missing middle" to be between semi-detached townhomes and around 3-6 unit apartment buildings with enough space to comfortably raise a family, typically ranging between 2-4 floors (can be larger, but it depends on context). I also believe missing middle development should be close up to the sidewalk, having a decent street presence and being more convenient in terms of walkability. I do think missing middle can be mixed use with ground floor commercial (especially corner lots), however it should be more soft and shouldn't feel overwhelming in terms of its street presence with its overall design. Most of what I'd missing middle development is entirely residential.

[Five Four]

This recent development in Charlottetown is what I'd consider a good example of missing middle housing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Architype

The missing middle in Vancouver is not based on cheapness or affordability, because there is no cheap housing to begin with. It is the type (building form) we built before the high-rise and condo waves came in the 1960s and beyond; mostly walk-up apartments, but it also includes housing stock converted from SFH to multi unit buildings.

That’s what happens when you let foreign buyers set the price of land. You’ll never get back to a point where homes are affordable for local incomes in Vancouver.

Sadly we also let overseas developers set the tone for our urban development, forsaking the true missing middle for a forest of anonymous highrises that will become increasingly expensive to maintain as they age.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Docere

Well Toronto reddit thinks everyone over 65 should be forced to give up their houses "in order to solve the housing crisis."

I have also seen this used as a straw man by NIMBYs when they're trying to prevent development rules being changed. But forcing people out of their homes and allowing property owners to sell and/or develop are two completely different things.

You also often hear the "kicking out grandma" framing when there are debates about raising property taxes or even gradually un-freezing assessment caps for wealthy homeowners.

It is annoying when you get an overly polarized debate where multiple major factions become batty.

[Surrealplaces]

I feel there's a pretty clear definition for 'middle' type housing - 'middle' being anything more dense than SFH, up to any type of structure that has direct access from the outside. For me a 3 story building where the majority of units are accessed from the inside of the structure is an apartment plain and simple. At this point there is no difference between say that or a high-rise, at least from a definition perspective. Other intangibles make the two different.

With that type of definition, it then becomes a case of whether it's 'missing' or not, and what level or percentage would require it to be 'missing'?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have also seen this used as a straw man by NIMBYs when they're trying to prevent development rules being changed. But forcing people out of their homes and allowing property owners to sell and/or develop are two completely different things.

You also often hear the "kicking out grandma" framing when there are debates about raising property taxes or even gradually un-freezing assessment caps for wealthy homeowners.

It is annoying when you get an overly polarized debate where multiple major factions become batty.

Maybe I haven't spent enough time there, but it seems like more than 50% of the so-called "housing debate" is "rich greedy Boomers hogging housing."

Having people fight culture wars is a great way to keep people distracted from diagnosing the real problem and coming up with solutions.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

I feel there's a pretty clear definition for 'middle' type housing - 'middle' being anything more dense than SFH, up to any type of structure that has direct access from the outside. For me a 3 story building where the majority of units are accessed from the inside of the structure is an apartment plain and simple. At this point there is no difference between say that or a high-rise, at least from a definition perspective. Other intangibles make the two different.

To say there's no meaningful difference between a 3 story apartment building and a highrise misses much of the relevant aspects of the whole topic. Lowrise apartment buildings cast much smaller shadows and have a far less overbearing visual presence when added to lowrise areas. That allows them to be built in a lot of places where highrises would more greatly affect the look and feel of a neighbourhood. And depending on the jurisdiction, a 3 story building often isn't required to have elevators which affects both the cost of development and the experience of people living in the building. Plus smaller buildings can be added to places that can't handle as much density due to limitations on infrastructure such as the capacity of roads, schools, and sanitation etc.

Fact is, how well something fits into different types of settings is really the biggest aspect of medium density development since the restrictions that have long obstructed it are largely based on the idea that it isn't compatible with SFHs. The term "gentle density" is very popular right now for these very reasons. In most relevant ways, there's a MUCH bigger difference between a 3 story apartment building and say, a 20 story highrise than there is between a 3 story apartment building and a 2 story house. Whether or not the units have exterior entrances is relevant, but a fairly small and inconsequential difference when looking at all considerations.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Except, the claim that the density would be the same is completely untrue. I've heard this false claim spread around for years now and I'm not sure of the exact source but it's probably down to comparisons at the neighbourhood or borough scale which capture a lot of other stuff like highrises which skew the density.

Right, but razing and re-zoning wouldn't result in the Montreal of Ontario would it? It's like playing SimCity.

[zoomer]

Oh the Urbanity! covers the 'look' of density in part in this video released today

• Video Link