Part 2: Zoning Reform Is No Silver Bullet – Lessons from Arlington, Charlotte, and Durham
October 23, 2025
Part 2: Zoning Reform Is No Silver Bullet – Lessons from Arlington, Charlotte, and Durham
If we regulate it, will affordable homes come? Across the nation, cities are revisiting decades-old zoning rules in hopes of easing the housing crisis. By allowing duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwellings in neighborhoods once limited to single-family homes, policymakers aim to create a surge of “missing middle” housing – more units, lower costs. It’s a compelling idea: loosen the zoning straitjacket and the market will produce smaller, more affordable homes. But as Durham considers its own zoning reforms, the early evidence from places like Arlington and Charlotte shows both the promise and the limitations of this approach.
Arlington’s Missing Middle Experiment
Arlington County, VA made national headlines by effectively ending single-family-only zoning in 2023. Through its Expanded Housing Options (EHO) policy – often dubbed the “Missing Middle” plan – Arlington now allows up to 6-unit buildings on lots that were previously reserved for one home. The goal is straightforward: increase housing supply and choice in high-demand neighborhoods. So, what happened? In the first year, a modest number of projects took advantage. Arlington approved 29 EHO projects, for a net increase of 123 housing units (if all are built). That’s only about 0.4% of the housing stock in the eligible zones. That’s a a small dent. You might ask, “Why so low?” For one, market economics still favor high-end development. Many of the new “missing middle” slots in Arlington were filled by luxury townhomes or condos that, while adding units, came in at prices north of $800,000 – hardly “affordable” to moderate-income families. Additionally, Arlington’s initiative faced pushback: a lawsuit by anti-upzoning activists briefly halted the program (a judge voided it on procedural grounds), though an appeals court has since allowed it to proceed. This legal uncertainty dampened developer enthusiasm.
In short, Arlington’s bold reform has begun to diversify housing types – you now see duplexes and fourplexes where once only single homes stood – but it has not yet delivered a wave of deeply affordable housing. It may yet, over time, increase supply enough to slow price growth. However, one year in, it’s clear that simply permitting duplexes doesn’t guarantee they’ll be built at scale or at price points working families can afford. Zoning opened the door, but the market is walking through slowly and selectively.
Charlotte’s Duplex-and-Triplex Gamble
Closer to home, Charlotte, NC undertook a significant zoning overhaul as part of its 2021 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The city legalized duplexes and triplexes on essentially all residential lots, aiming to undo decades of exclusionary single-family zoning. By allowing “middle” housing in more neighborhoods, Charlotte hopes to expand supply and offer alternatives to costly single-family homes. The policy officially took effect in mid-2023 – and almost immediately, political turbulence followed. This past spring, a faction of the City Council sought to revisit or roll back the duplex/triplex provision, worried that it might spur unwanted density in certain areas or accelerate gentrification in vulnerable neighborhoods. After years of debate and a narrow initial vote, even implementation did not end the controversy. As of now, the rules remain in place, but not without ongoing scrutiny.
It’s too early to judge Charlotte’s results by the numbers – building permits data post-UDO are still coming in. History, however, offers perspective: in the 20 years prior, under the old restrictive zoning, Charlotte built only around 400 duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes citywide. That’s an anemic figure for a city of Charlotte’s size, and it underscores how thoroughly single-family exclusivity had choked off the missing middle. The new UDO aims to reverse that trend. We expect a gradual uptick in these modest multi-family homes, but will they be affordable? Likely, many new duplexes will target the upscale market (e.g. two $700k townhouses replacing one older home). Charlotte’s experience also highlights an equity concern: an estimated 67% of single-family lots in Charlotte are governed by HOAs that ban multi-unit housing. Those wealthier enclaves will stay single-family by private rule, while historically Black neighborhoods without HOAs may see the bulk of duplex development (and potentially higher land prices as a result). This imbalance is exactly what council members sparred over – whether the zoning change is a blow against segregation or a backdoor to displacement.
The takeaway from Charlotte so far is nuanced. Yes, removing zoning barriers is necessary to allow more housing – you can’t build duplexes if they’re illegal. But no, it’s not sufficient to ensure affordability or equitable distribution. Charlotte will need to pair its zoning reform with aggressive affordability measures (like preserving some subsidized units, offering city-owned land for affordable developments, or protecting residents in gentrifying areas) if it wants the missing middle to actually serve the middle class.
Durham’s Own Zoning Reforms: EHC and SCAD
Here in Durham, we’ve been grappling with the same questions. In 2019, Durham approved the Expanding Housing Choices (EHC) initiative, a suite of code changes to spur more diverse housing in our urban core. EHC made it easier to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), allowed duplexes and small houses on small lots in many neighborhoods, and reduced some parking and setback requirements. The results after four years have been mixed. On one hand, ADUs – those backyard cottages or garage apartments – have indeed proliferated. The city issued 95 ADU permits under EHC, accounting for about 41% of all ADU permits in that period. Prior to 2019, building an ADU in Durham was a rarity; now they’re far more common, which is a win for adding gentle density. (Notably, most ADUs have been built in higher-income areas, often as rentals or in-law suites – meaning they add to housing supply, though not always at low rents.)
Duplexes, however, remain as scarce as hen’s teeth. Only 19 duplexes were built thanks to the EHC changes – just 11% of all duplex permits since 2019. In fact, duplexes still make up only ~3% of Durham’s new home permits each year, a tiny share. This tells us that simply legalizing duplex construction (which EHC did on most urban lots) wasn’t enough to make it happen at scale. The economics often don’t pan out: many small lots in Durham hold older homes, and tearing one down to build two units can be costly and contentious. Without subsidies or incentives, a developer might find it more profitable to build one large home selling at $600,000 than two small $300,000 homes – even though the latter would better serve local needs. EHC was a step forward, but its modest outcomes show the limits of zoning tweaks in a hot market.
Fast forward to 2023-24, and Durham engaged in a fierce debate over a proposal known as “SCAD” (Simplifying Codes for Affordable Development). Unlike EHC, which was city-initiated, SCAD came as a privately proposed overhaul of Durham’s zoning ordinance. It sought to dramatically loosen rules – allowing more housing types (like townhomes and multiplexes) in more places by right, reducing minimum lot sizes, eliminating parking minimums, and cutting red tape for affordable housing projects. Supporters argued SCAD would unleash the power of the market to address our 20,000+ unit housing shortfall. As a housing advocate, I genuinely embrace many of these overall goals. Examples: permitting “missing middle” homes on more parcels, and encouraging smaller, less expensive units. These are sensible moves – Durham’s current UDO was written 20 years ago and hasn’t kept up with our growth.
However, the SCAD process became a lightning rod. Public meetings turned into shouting matches, with lines blurred between affordable housing activists and wary neighborhood groups. In a heated election season, SCAD was portrayed by some as a developers’ free-for-all that might accelerate gentrification under the guise of “affordable development.” The verdict is still out on who was right and who was wrong. Only time will tell. Ultimately, a City Council vote on SCAD was delayed amid the controversy and was later passed. In the meantime, the County Commissioners did vote with them to eliminate all parking minimums countywide. Will it work? To be fair while some still question the step reducing parking mandates can lower housing costs; there are cities like, Minneapolis who saw a direct correlation and did see rents stabilize after removing parking minimums. Durham also continues to encourage affordable housing through density bonuses and its prior Expanding Housing Choices provisions. But the grander SCAD upzoning has yet to be resolved as of this writing.
From where I sit as the head of Habitat Durham, what do these case studies teach us? First, zoning reform is absolutely necessary to enable a wider variety of housing. We cannot build our way out of a housing shortage if our rules forbid anything but one-house-per-acre. In that respect, Arlington, Charlotte, and Durham’s efforts are moves in the right direction – they at least legalize the kinds of homes (duplexes, ADUs, small lots) that traditionally provided starter housing. But second, and most critically: zoning alone is not a silver bullet for affordability. It’s like opening the gate and expecting a flood, but only a trickle comes and often it’s high-priced.
Why? Because market forces and financial constraints still govern outcomes. A newly-allowed triplex in North Durham will still cost $400,000 per unit to build when land, labor, and materials are tallied. The builder isn’t going to sell or rent it for half that out of charity. That is not unless subsidy fills the gap. Without tools like inclusionary zoning (which NC law currently prohibits cities from mandating) or substantial public subsidy, the majority of new “missing middle” homes will be priced at market rates, which in Durham’s case are increasingly out of reach for moderate incomes. Zoning changes also don’t address down payment barriers or wealth gaps that we discussed in Part 1. A duplex that sells for $350,000 per unit is still unattainable to a family that can only get approved for a $250,000 loan or who can’t muster $15,000 in cash.
Moreover, upzoning can have unintended consequences if not paired with tenant protections and anti-displacement measures. We must be vigilant that opening formerly single-family neighborhoods to multi-unit development doesn’t result in speculative land buys and the ousting of long-time residents. In Durham’s case, the City has tried to preempt this by offering grants for low-income homeowners to build ADUs (to benefit from the new rules rather than be victimized by them) – a promising idea, but funding is limited. We have also seen proposals for “neighborhood stabilization overlays” (as in Charlotte) to add extra review for projects in vulnerable areas. These are worth exploring to ensure zoning reform benefits those it’s intended to help.
The bottom line: Zoning reform is a crucial tool in the toolbox, but it’s not magic. It can remove unnecessary barriers – for example, by right now we can build a small cottage court or row of townhomes on a Durham infill lot where it was illegal before, and that’s good. But to actually produce affordable housing at scale, we need to pair zoning changes with serious investment. That means local bond funds for affordable housing, state and federal subsidies (Low Income Housing Tax Credits, housing vouchers, etc.), and creative public-private partnerships (like the one Habitat Durham did with the Durham Housing Authority to build 37 affordable homes on former DHA land. It also means pushing for state policy changes – imagine if North Carolina allowed inclusionary zoning, so a percentage of every new multi-unit development had to be affordable. Or if we had a statewide housing trust fund to assist moderate-income homebuyers.
As it stands, our city can tweak the UDO all day, but without the dollars and programs to make units affordable, we risk creating an illusion of progress. We might get more housing, yet still not house our teachers, firefighters, and nurses in the city they serve. Durham’s own experience with EHC shows that even well-intentioned zoning changes must be monitored and adjusted. Did we get the outcomes we wanted? If not, how can we induce the market to deliver better results? Should it be through incentives or requirements?
In closing, I have no problem with making Durham’s efforts to modernize our zoning. We should absolutely embrace missing middle housing and strive to remove archaic rules that no longer serve our community. Those reforms are necessary groundwork for a more inclusive city. But let’s not oversell them as a panacea. The experiences in Arlington and Charlotte remind us that housing affordability won’t be solved by zoning alone. It will take comprehensive action – zoning and funding and community collaboration. Let’s reform our codes, yes, but also rally for the resources that ensure those code changes lead to homes our families can actually afford.
In the final part of this series, I will discuss how Habitat for Humanity of Durham is adapting to these new realities – and why it will takeall of us togetherto build an affordable future