Not every housing policy labeled “affordable” is actually designed to make housing more affordable. That is the central problem with today’s “missing middle” debate.
Across the country, duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, townhomes and small multifamily buildings are being promoted as the solution to America’s housing affordability crisis. The argument sounds clean and appealing: allow more housing types, create more inclusive neighborhoods, and add diversity and affordability will follow.
But that framing quietly conflates two very different objectives. Housing affordability is an economic problem. Neighborhood diversity is a social policy goal.
They may overlap at times, but they are not the same thing. Treating them as interchangeable has fueled a housing debate that promises lower prices while often pursuing a completely different vision for how communities should be organized. That distinction matters.
America was built on frontier, not forced proximity
The American dream was not born of the idea that every family should find a discounted unit in an already-expensive neighborhood. It was built on motion, expansion, ownership, and the ability to pursue opportunity elsewhere. The cultural script was not, “How do we all fit into the same handful of elite metros?” It was, “Go West. Build. Own. Start over. Create something.”
Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis argued that the American character was shaped by the westward push into new territory: land, risk, self-reliance and reinvention. In housing terms, that dream looked like ordinary families moving outward, building new towns, and eventually owning their own homes.
Today, much of the housing debate has lost that instinct. Instead of asking how we create more places where families can live affordably, many policymakers ask how to retrofit high-demand neighborhoods to accommodate every income level, preference, and lifestyle expectation at below-market prices. That is not a housing strategy. That is a social aspiration colliding with land economics. Affordability Is About Math
At its core, affordability is not complicated. It is about the relationship among supply, demand, income, land costs, capital costs, construction costs, taxes, insurance, regulation, and time. If a region does not build enough homes for a growing population, prices rise. If incomes do not keep pace with housing costs, affordability declines. If permitting takes years, infrastructure lags, land is constrained, and every project is burdened by political friction, housing prices rise before a single nail is driven.
That is not ideology. That is arithmetic.
Over the past decade, that math has turned against millions of American households. In many large metropolitan areas, home prices have risen far faster than incomes. Households that once could move from an expensive neighborhood to a more affordable nearby community now often find the entire region has become expensive. That is the key point. When prices rise everywhere, affordability is no longer just a neighborhood problem. It is a regional supply problem.
Missing Middle does not escape land economics
The missing-middle argument often implies that altering building form changes affordability outcomes. Replace one house with a duplex. Replace a block of detached homes with townhomes. Add triplexes near transit. Allow courtyard apartments in established neighborhoods.
Sometimes that creates more options. Sometimes that is good planning. But it does not magically create affordability. In high-demand neighborhoods, the land is already expensive. The entitlement process is expensive. Construction is expensive. Financing is expensive. Taxes and insurance are expensive. By the time a new missing-middle product reaches the market, it is usually priced at or near the prevailing market rate. The building form changes. The price often does not.
A new townhome in a desirable urban neighborhood is not automatically affordable just because it shares a wall. A duplex on expensive land does not become middle-class housing simply because it is a duplex. A courtyard apartment in a high-income neighborhood may add density, but density alone does not suspend the laws of cost. More housing helps over time. But missing-middle housing is not inherently affordable housing. That is the mistake.
Supply works regionally, not symbolically
The best argument for missing-middle reform is not that it instantly creates cheap homes. It does not. The better argument is that allowing more housing types can incrementally expand supply, increase product variety, and ease pressure over time. That is reasonable. But it is not the same as claiming missing-middle zoning is an affordability solution. Affordability improves when enough housing is produced across an entire region to shift the balance between supply and demand.
That means infrastructure, permitting capacity, predictable approvals, scalable development, construction efficiency, capital formation, land availability, product diversity, regional growth planning and political seriousness. It does not mean pretending that a handful of duplexes in a high-demand neighborhood will materially change what a teacher, firefighter, nurse, police officer, or young family can afford across a metro area. America does not have a shortage of housing rhetoric. It has a shortage of housing production.
When the debate turns moral, the math gets lost
One reason this conversation has become so confused is that housing affordability has increasingly been framed as a moral failure rather than an economic imbalance.
Expensive neighborhoods are described as exclusionary by default. Rising prices are treated as proof of injustice. A lack of socioeconomic diversity is taken as evidence that something improper must have occurred.
Sometimes discrimination and exclusion are real. When they are, they should be addressed directly through fair-housing enforcement, anti-discrimination rules, and targeted reforms. But a neighborhood becoming expensive is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing.
More often, it means demand has outstripped supply.
That distinction matters because the policy response should match the actual problem. If the goal is affordability, the answer is a larger total housing supply delivered at scale. If the goal is socioeconomic diversity within specific neighborhoods, say that clearly and evaluate those policies on that basis. Do not sell one as the other. One objective seeks lower prices. The other seeks a different distribution of residents. Both may be legitimate public debates, but they are not the same debate.
The real question policymakers avoid
The uncomfortable truth is that many affordability debates sidestep the hardest question:Are we trying to make housing less expensive, or are we trying to decide who should live where?Those are very different missions.
If policymakers want broader affordability, they need to focus on regional supply, infrastructure, the speed of entitlements, construction costs, development feasibility, and the ability to create new communities where ordinary families can buy or rent at attainable prices. If policymakers want more income mixing in established neighborhoods, they should be honest about that goal. That may involve subsidies, vouchers, inclusionary zoning, public land strategies, or mobility programs. But those tools should be judged by whether they achieve social-mixing objectives—not by pretending they will solve the broader affordability crisis.
The missing middle can be part of a housing toolkit. It can add flexibility, create more varied product types, and help some households find options that did not previously exist. But it is not a silver bullet. And it is certainly not a substitute for building enough housing in the places where growth is actually occurring.
The frontier still matters
A serious housing strategy should not be built on the fantasy that every household can consume more location, more amenities, more space and more neighborhood prestige at a discount to reality. That is not the American dream. That is entitlement dressed up as planning.
The American dream has always been more demanding and more optimistic than that. It calls for building new places, opening new frontiers, expanding opportunity and creating communities where families can own, grow and belong. That does not mean every household gets to live in the most expensive neighborhood at a subsidized price. It means the country must remain capable of producing new places where opportunity remains attainable. That is the real affordability test.
The missing middle may be a useful planning tool and even a desirable social vision. But let’s stop pretending it is, by itself, an affordability strategy. It is not. Affordability is measured by prices, payments, incomes and supply, not slogans.