MBAKS has released a new middle housing issue brief to support successful implementation of House Bill 1110. The new brief, Middle Housing Implementation Plan, contains process and model code recommendations for cities subject to HB 1110, as well as tools and resources related to middle housing.

MBAKS’ overarching suggestion for cities implementing middle housing is to keep it simple. The easier and more cost-effective it is to build middle housing, the more likely it is to be built, and the more attainable it will be for those looking for a place to call home. The recommendations in the issue brief were informed by the work of MBAKS’ Ad Hoc Middle Housing Advisory Group and are designed to streamline the review process and facilitate more housing choices.

Allowing more middle housing will enable cities to better plan for a spectrum of housing choices so that current residents, newcomers, and future generations may find a home that best fits their lives. View Middle Housing Implementation Plan.

By Allison Butcher, Master Builders Association, The Lens News

Over the past 18 months, five King County cities have adopted a building moratorium, temporarily putting the brakes on new home construction.

While a moratorium is legal, it does not mean it is good policy. At a time when demand for housing is far outpacing housing supply, which drives up both home prices and rents and makes housing less attainable, building moratoria certainly are not good for housing. They also are not good for our economy or the families and workers looking for a home closer to job centers. Furthermore, they potentially could run counter to our region's transportation investments that contemplate the need for more transit-oriented development in certain areas.

A recent Construction Coverage study finds that the median home age in Seattle is 37 years old, built around the late 1980s. That's older than every fast-growing metro we compete with for workers and families: Austin (19), Raleigh (22), Charlotte (26), Phoenix (29), Denver (35), Salt Lake City (35). Meanwhile, Seattle's population grew 25% from 2010 to 2020. More people, fewer new homes per person, and older housing stock every year. Old housing isn't just expensive to maintain — it's housing we can't add to, and every year the gap between what we have and what we need widens.

A Fox 13 story covering the study tells us what's happening. It doesn't get into why — or what to do. So, let's tackle both.

Why are Seattle's homes older than homes in fast-growing peer cities?

It isn't geography or demand. Austin builds in a tough climate. Phoenix keeps building despite water problems. The difference is what we've allowed to be built.

Seattle has stacked decades of choices that made it harder, slower, and more expensive to build:

• Zoning that locked the map in place. Most of Seattle's residential land has been reserved for one detached house per lot. You can't refresh the housing stock that way.
• Permits that take longer than projects can wait. An 18-to-36-month permit timeline means projects get shelved when interest rates move. Slow permits are a downzone.
• Fees stacked on fees. Impact fees, affordability charges, and review fees pile up. Every $1,000 added to the cost of a home prices more families out.
• Decisions made case by case. Design review, environmental appeals, and judgment calls add risk that builders price in or walk away from.
• Rules that make lots unbuildable. Tree codes, critical-area buffers, and undergrounding requirements can take a small infill project from possible to impossible.

This shows up in real bills. According to the Construction Coverage study's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, pre-1940 homes cost about 10 times as much in routine maintenance as new ones — roughly $1,615 a year vs. $164 — and are nearly 30 times more likely to be in inadequate condition.

What can we do about it?

Aging housing is a policy outcome. It can be a different one.

MBAKS uses a simple test we call the Housing Policy Filter. Before adopting any code change, fee, or process, ask: does it reduce buildable land, add complexity or uncertainty, diminish property rights, or increase costs to construct?

If yes to any of those, fewer homes get built.

The Filter in practice:

• Put HB 1110 to work. The new middle-housing zoning lands faster when local rules are clear, approvals are by-right, and permit timelines are met.
• Trade judgment calls for clear rules. Predictable, objective standards produce more housing than case-by-case review.
• Speed up permits. Defined, predictable timelines and resources at the bottleneck keep projects moving.
• Right-size fees. Audit what each fee funds — and the homes it prevents.
• Fix the small-lot rules. Tune tree codes, setbacks, buffers, and road widths to the housing we need now.

Austin and Raleigh and Charlotte didn't end up with new housing stock by accident. Seattle didn't end up with old housing stock by accident, either. The difference is what each place chooses to allow.

More homes. Better outcomes. That's the test.

View the MBAKS Barriers and Solutions guide. Questions? policy@mbaks.com.