Talk:Missing middle housing

Tone

This page would be better if it were not so blatantly self-serving and promotional. William Weber Minnesota (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the picture was obvious advertising, but the whole article needs a rewrite. Also, another issue is that it only focuses on the US. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like some of the information was copied from [1] as well, so had to remove it. Although it was clearly promotional anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Self promotional / commercial / neutrality

This entire article promotes the so-called "missing middle housing" initiative pushed by developers to build profitable new development under the guise of replacing a "missing" type of housing and addressing a "shortage" -- this article is promotional/commercial and NOT neutral by any means. It's nearly word-for-word taken from the inventor of this marketing term, Daniel G. Parolek, of Opticos Design. Also, according to the page history, employees of Opticos Design have made the majority of contributions to this article. This entire article needs to be removed, as it serves no educational purpose, and is quite blatantly commercial/promotional in nature. Asaturn (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: do not remove the deletion proposal (for commercial marketing spam) without contributing to discussion; a simple "undo" of the proposal is the wrong way to go about this. Asaturn (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is correct that Parolek coined the term "missing middle housing" in 2010 but it is now a major concept within the urban planning, housing, and local government fields. You can find discussions about missing middle housing in the Journal of American planning, American Planning Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, and AARP Livable Communities. Local and State governments across the United States, Canada, and Australia are creating policies using the term missing middle housing to describe housing situations. In these cases, they are not referring people to Parolek's or his firm but are using the term to describe local housing conditions. The article serves to educate people about this important urban planning concept.

The majority of the article was not written by Optics or its employees.

In the United States, Canada, and Australia the vast majority of housing considered affordable was built "for-profit". Furthermore, the missing middle concept can and is being applied to public housing projects. For example, the term would be relevant when a public housing project is be banned because an area is only zoned for single-family housing and the public housing project contains duplexes. The term would also be relevant when the only available public housing is an apartment tower compared to having the option of smaller four-plexes, for example. Several public housing projects across the United States are actively building missing middle housing types in part due to a new understanding of the concept, benefits, and ease of integrating it into existing neighborhoods. Missing middle housing styles are vital to reducing opposition to public and affordable housing projects and can result in affordable to build high-quality homes. For these reasons HUD has promoted missing middle housing.

This article is not commercial. If you oppose "for-profit" housing and do not believe in the housing "shortage" there is still no reason to delete an article about this high profile urban planning concept that can apply to market rate, subdidized, or public housing. --Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Parolek and his org are the main authors of this article and it is entirely commercial promotion of their corporate developer model. The cities that use it are quite literally using the photos and graphs from Parolek's org. This is lobbying, plain and simple. It has zero educational value and isn't "for profit housing" but a very specific model being advertised. Duplexes and other "multi unit housing" were not invented by Parolek. This article is spam and the continued back and forth between developers misusing Wikipedia to promote their products and services goes against the TOS. Asaturn (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

as for the claim that Opticos Design employees aren't making edits to this entry, there's quite literally an edit made by a since-deleted account: 20:35, 5 April 2021‎ OpticosDesign and many others are done by users who seemingly have a singular interest in promoting "missing middle housing(TM)" Asaturn (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Many local governments choose not to use Optics’s photos or graphics including but not limited to Victoria BC, Santa Rosa CA, Berkeley CA, Spokane, WA, West Linn OR, etc. Many local governments do use the graphics created by Optics. Those graphics are high quality and explain the concept well. Few local governments have staff with the capacity to create similar renderings. Why would they pay for a designer to make them when there are existing graphics that explain the concept well?

Missing middle housing describes an urban planning concept that provides information on housing policy and history in the United States and Canada. For example, a planner using the term missing middle housing is describing a particular type and scale of housing that was banned through zoning in their municipality. The term is shorthand to describe a particular history, policy, and design concept.

A similar concept would be, for example, new urbanism. Similar to “missing middle”, the term new urbanism was invented by a group of architects. That group created an organization “The Congress for New Urbanism” with which they promoted the concept and offered (for-profit) consulting services to developers, governments, and other groups through their organization. However, when we discuss new urbanism we are not necessarily discussing or relying on the Congress for New Urbanism (the organization). New urbanism refers to a set of design policies and principles and countless developers, governments, and urbanist groups apply the principles of new urbanism in their projects though they have no connection to the organization. In urban planning discourse, most planners will understand what is meant by, for example, including new urbanist principles in a plan. The concept (the principles of new urbanism) has had a major impact on design and public policy.

In that vein, “missing middle housing” is a concept created and promoted by a particular group whose principles and implementation do not necessarily involve the organization that coined the term. Very few of the local governments mentioned in the article used Optics’ consulting services. Those that did not use Optics’ services based their policy on the design and policy concept of “missing middle housing”.

Nothing in the article claims or implies that Parolek invented duplexes or other missing middle housing types. The fact that these housing types already existed is integral to the definition of the concept. The concept of “missing middle housing” is having a major impact on urban planning discourse. While duplexes, triplexes, etc. certainly existed before the concept of “missing middle” they were rarely discussed within the field. The introduction of the missing middle housing concept has brought about major changes to urban planning discourse in the decade since it was coined. As outlined in the article, since the concept was created several cities across the country have taken steps to permit more “missing middle” housing types in their jurisdictions.

The assumption that the only or primary reason someone may be using the term missing middle housing is that they are interested in promoting Optics the firm is simply untrue. There are many motivations for providing more information about missing middle housing. For example, advocates for elderly individuals like AARP actively promote the concept of missing middle housing as accessory dwelling units can provide housing for their members. Affordable housing advocates have an interest in missing middle housing as a tool in their efforts to provide quality affordable housing. Environmental activists may be interested in using the concept as a tool to promote transit-oriented development and smaller more energy-efficient housing units.

These are the same reasons that the article provides an immense educational value. For example, I first encountered the concept when working for a local government and was asked to provide information on affordable housing policy options to our city council. They were also interested in bringing more housing near our train station but did not want large apartment buildings. Missing middle housing was one (of many tools) presented. At the time, there was very little information about what other cities have done to address the “missing” housing types. This article provides that type of information. Ultimately our city council is doing a trial run on inclusionary zoning for certain types of housing development though they are still considering missing middle housing in certain areas and potentially subsidies for developments catering to seniors.

You fail to mention that edit from Optics was deleted (and their graphics do not appear in the article). Because I wrote most of the article I can’t help but read the accusation that this article was written by Parolek as an accusation against me Joiedevivre123321 because I wrote most of the artile. I assure you I am a low-level public-sector bureaucrat. I have attended countless meetings on developments and I assure you the greatest obstacle to affordable housing is your local city council and NIMBYs who shout down all affordable development options. If you look at my edits it is not a “singular interest” in missing middle housing. The topic is important to me as I try to provide information on a number of housing policy tools. As you can see, I have also added photos of quality affordable housing (to combat the stereotype all affordable housing is block towers) and written about LGBT issues, created the public and state housing section of the affordable housing page, added information about public housing in Vienna and South Korea, wrote about pacifism, and added information about community land trusts, housing cooperatives, and mutual-aid housing cooperatives. I am trying to provide objective information on housing policy and hope to continue providing information on these topics. Wikipedia encourages us to assume good faith in others edits and work. I assume you are good faith and your concerns and ask you extend that to me as well.

Kindly, --Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"I am a low-level public-sector bureaucrat. I have attended countless meetings on developments and I assure you the greatest obstacle to affordable housing is your local city council and NIMBYs who shout down all affordable development options." "I try to provide information on a number of housing policy tools."

You are blatantly admitting that you are not a neutral party! If you wrote the majority of this article, and you are a lobbyist with a biased opinion on a topic, you are promoting one commercial strategy for housing development. You are using Wikipedia for lobbying purposes. This entire article should be deleted. Asaturn (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Design Section Picture

I updated the "design" section with a newer/better picture but have other options if people think they are better. I used the square one because I'm not sure how to make the frama in Wikipedia wide like the last version.

Examples of "missing middle" housing types

Examples of "missing middle" housing types

Examples of "missing middle" housing types

Also happy to edit these and improve them if anyone has suggestions. If we like the photo collage verion the most I can spend some more time finding photos or probably take some (once it's spring and less grey where I live).

Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)