Q: Housing? A: Infill.

The exam is beyond ridiculous. Jobbing architects know that the process is as important than the product. Sometimes more so. And nowhere is this more evident than in the missing middle: inserting infill housing into existing suburbs runs the full gauntlet: difficult sites, unrealistic clients, negative Councils, activist NIMBYs, and reluctant banks. It’s a hard slog, mostly well rewarded, occasionally not..

Recent reports by the NSW Productivity Commission and Investment Victoria have shown that the optimum place for new housing is in old suburbs, and recent columns have shown that older typologies, are the new concepts. It’s back to the future, twice over. Firstly, there are always underutilised sites within existing suburbs that provide ideal opportunities for increased density, of better quality, without a loss of local amenity. These may be brownfield or greyfield, private or public, large or small. But all have the possibility for better housing..

The missing middle is term we are hearing a lot in this housing crisis. Originally coined to describe a lack of housing development in middle ring suburbs, it proves helpful in ways other than planning. It can describe middle density housing, missing in the ‘low-rise vs high-rise’ debate. It could also describe a middle way compromise on housing policy, between federal Labor and the Greens that is so far MIA..