Daniel Diaz Leyva: The missing middle

This detailed model represents a planned residential development, illustrating homes arranged along winding streets with landscaping and amenities included.

Miami’s affordable housing crisis calls for bold, market-driven solutions.

Florida has a strong track record of implementing free-market policies that have attracted new residents and businesses, making it a vibrant hub for growth.

But let me be clear, our Miami miracle is unsustainable without middle-income residents continuing to power and support its growth. The Live Local Act is a big step in the right direction, but we can do more.

While it’s encouraging that the state has taken leadership through Live Local, there is no silver bullet at the statewide level. Florida is a large, diverse state with urban cores, suburbs, exurbs, and rural communities — all with different housing needs.

For free markets to succeed, local governments must also be empowered to tailor housing policy to their communities’ unique demands. This means ensuring local priorities — like affordability, scale, and infrastructure fit — are central to planning and building.

By enabling small-scale multi-unit residential buildings and modernizing zoning regulations — such as reducing stairway requirements from two to one, eliminating parking mandates, and further encouraging development around transit hubs — Miami can unlock a wave of market-rate housing that meets the needs of middle-income residents.

These measures will not only enhance affordability but also ensure Miami remains a prime destination for innovation and opportunity.

Importantly, we must reprioritize infill development — focusing on making the most of underutilized lots in existing neighborhoods. Many high-growth areas of Florida, especially major metros like Miami, have seen housing production skew toward luxury units.

This overemphasis has priced many working families out. Efficiently scaled infill projects, built with clear and objective standards and free from overburdensome regulations, can change that trajectory.

With the assistance of technology, it is high time for our local governments to create a fast-track review process for projects with fewer than 20 units that comply with zoning and design rules and remove subjectivity from the process.

Offering predictable, by-right development pathways without public hearings should open the spigot for private capital to flow into infill projects.

Reducing stairway requirements from two to one in small multi-unit residential buildings can significantly enhance affordability and feasibility. Each stairwell can cost tens of thousands of dollars in materials, labor, and fireproofing.

They also require additional square footage, which means less rentable or sellable space.

Allowing one stair in buildings up to three or four stories (with fire-safety design standards like sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated corridors following NFPA standards) enables smaller developers without subsidies to build economically viable, lower-cost housing with greater design flexibility—especially on narrow urban lots — ideal for “missing middle” housing like triplexes or small multi-unit residential buildings.

Reducing stairway requirements for smaller buildings is a targeted, technical change that removes a hidden barrier to developing affordable, market-rate housing. It’s a high-impact, low-cost reform that enables more infill development without compromising safety.

Reducing or eliminating parking requirements is one of the most impactful zoning reforms for improving housing affordability. Constructing a single surface parking space typically costs $5,000–$10,000; structured parking can run over $100,000 per space, and underground parking even more.

By reducing parking mandates, developers can fit more housing on the same lot, making projects more financially viable and increasing overall housing supply. Parking requirements make it especially hard to develop small lots and missing middle housing like triplexes and small multi-unit residential buildings, which don’t have the land area for mandated parking.

Removing parking minimums makes it possible to build context-sensitive, walkable housing in established neighborhoods. Reducing parking requirements allows developers to build more units at lower cost, encourages smarter land use, and supports a shift toward walkable, transit-oriented development.

In high-demand cities like Miami, this reform can unlock more affordable housing — without relying on subsidies or compromising quality.

Finally, building around transit hubs can unlock new areas for development, ensuring residents have easy access to public transportation and further reducing reliance on cars.

These measures have been successfully implemented in major cities across the country, where relaxing zoning laws and reducing minimum parking requirements have increased the number of diverse, affordable housing options.

By embracing these proven strategies—while recognizing that housing policy must reflect the unique character and challenges of each community — Miami can create a more inclusive and resilient housing market that serves all its residents without relying on government subsidies.

We must solve the problem of the missing middle.

Miami’s continued growth and sustainability depend on it.

___

Daniel Diaz Leyva is a corporate real estate attorney and investor.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the employer or its clients. This article is for general informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.