Editor:

We have heard much about the “Missing Middle” lately from the Citizens Housing Commission (CHC). Indeed, the Missing Middle is identified as one of the key motivations for Edmonds to transform its zoning laws and the even its entire housing and neighborhood structure. Although the CHC described aspects of the Missing Middle, it was not adequately defined nor was it put into historical context.  Many Edmonds residents had no clear idea what The Missing Middle is nor why the CHC thought it was such an important element of the housing “crisis” in Edmonds.

Wikipedia defines the Missing Middle as an urban planning scheme that was introduced in 2010 by an architect, Daniel Parolek. He wrote a book about this plan and coined the term “The Missing Middle.”

The Missing Middle is based on a housing arrangement that was common in many cities in the early years of the 20th century; it still exists in some areas of the country. It consisted of a small area or neighborhood consisting of clustered single family to small- and medium-unit buildings that were often located around parks, walkways and small businesses that served the area. Ideally, people could walk to many or even most usual services…groceries, etc. Parolek and his colleagues thought that this was a preferable way for people to live in American cities; they listed many benefits to be enjoyed by the arrangement. Because this type of neighborhood had mostly disappeared in America, Parolek decided it was missing rather than gone, hence the term “Missing Middle”. (See further: missingmiddlehousing.com)

The reason the Missing Middle neighborhood plan had largely disappeared was because people didn’t prefer to live in that kind of neighborhood. Circumstances had changed since the early 20th century. As the urban population became more affluent and mobile, people moved to where they really wanted to live: the suburbs. They preferred [single dwelling] residential neighborhoods which consisted of private homes on private property, mostly with a yard and setbacks from sidewalks. If the Missing Middle type of plan was still popular or desirable, people would not have abandoned it and moved to the suburbs; it would not be missing.

In general, there are two ways for cities to organize: controlled growth or “top-down planning, which usually occurs by government diktat, or by self-organizing, bottom-up, development. While most cities develop by a combination of government and citizen control, the predominant influence is crucial. The most egregious example of top-down city planning was the government-mandated high-rise apartment “Projects” that were built to replace the slums of the inner cities of Chicago, New York, Baltimore and many others. One example of such a Project is the Cabrini -Green Towers in Chicago that became so blighted and unlivable that it was torn down. A lot of capital was wasted on Cabrini-Green and many lives and communities were negatively impacted. Many other projects such as those in New York City and even Syracuse, New York, suffered the same fate. The prominent urban planner Jane Jacobs (The Death and Life of American Cities) predicted that Cabrini-Green and similar “Projects” would be abandoned and torn down because the planners neither understood nor cared about the actual needs and desires of the people impacted by their plans. Moreover, they did not trust them to decide for themselves. Jacobs argued that cities should be self-organizing; starting at the level of the individual citizen homeowners.

Edmonds is such a self-organizing city; it has grown from the bottom up. Its growth was driven by the needs, desires and dreams of its residents. So, with relatively little top-down control, such as zoning for commercial, height, utility and safety-related restrictions, Edmonds organized itself into neighborhoods that were mainly single-dwelling homes and others that were multi-family residences. Zoning was enacted to support this arrangement because the citizens wanted to live in that kind of environment. People chose the neighborhood they preferred and could afford. This is how Edmonds became one of the most beautiful and desirable small towns on Puget Sound. Moreover, there is still adequate space for growth in Edmonds without disturbing the existing neighborhood organization.

Government-controlled, top-down city planning fails for many reasons. Most importantly, the planners have an agenda that ignores the aspirations and genuine needs of the citizens. Frequently there is almost always a “crisis” (like the Missing Middle) that must be addressed. Moreover, they don’t trust the citizens to make their own decisions about their homes and neighborhoods or even cutting down their own trees, an ongoing issue in Edmonds now. A striking (but not isolated) example of this kind of thinking was articulated by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who was quoted as saying that private property rights were the biggest impediment to city planning and government’s ability to determine which building goes where, who gets to live in it and who sets the rent (Wall Street Journal, Notable and Quotable, Sept 6, 2017).  (De Blasio Rails Against  Concept of Private Property, Says it Impedes NYC’s “Socialistic Impulse’ (freebeacon.com)

We see that same lack of respect for self-organizing and private property rights here in Edmonds. Upzoning for single-residential properties is an egregious intrusion on our private property rights and the right to choose the style of our neighborhoods. Moreover, many of the other CHC recommended changes appear to be on based on specious arguments supported by “boiler-plate” recommendations from expensive consultants. Like the Missing Middle” crisis,” many of their recommendations are dubious. Examples include the demands of the Growth Management Act (which we have already satisfied); the claim that most elderly people want to downsize; the need for Detached Dwelling Accessory Units (DADUs) to accommodate an expected increase in population, and the list goes on. The need for affordable housing is cited as an important issue but it has been repeatedly shown that the newly created “Missing Middle” dwellings will not be affordable…they will be expensive.

So who benefits? The developers, contractors and realtors will benefit as will the city government as a result of the increase in tax revenues. Also, those who believe we should have a more [government] controlled society where they, not we, will choose what our cities should look like and where we should live; they will be pleased.

Who won’t benefit? The intended beneficiaries still won’t be able to afford to live in Edmonds. A small number will be subsidized but the burden will fall on the citizens of Edmonds who will see significant increases in their taxes. As an unintended consequence, this will force some people out of their homes; especially elderly people and others with fixed incomes.  Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, the city will not retain its charm and culture: it will degrade as has Ballard and so many other communities.

In the coming primary and election for city council, specifically ask your candidate what is their position on the recommendations of the CHC and the long-term impact on Edmonds. Vote carefully because it only takes a majority of one city councilmember to change Edmonds as we know it. Those changes will hurt Edmonds, not improve it, and most likely will be irreversible.

Gerald Bernstein
Edmonds