Have questions about buying, selling or renting during COVID-19? Learn more

Zillow Research

Across 29 Metro Areas, Residents Largely Support Allowing Missing Middle Homes in Residential Neighborhoods

There is broad support to allow accessory dwelling units, duplexes and triplexes in residential neighborhoods, according to a new Zillow survey covering 29 U.S. metro areas, many of which are struggling with housing affordability. Most adults (82%) voiced support for allowing at least one multifamily option in their neighborhood. Among homeowners, 78% reported support for at least one, and support was higher among renters (89%).

Rapidly rising rents and home values have pushed housing affordability to the center of the conversation in much of the country. Record-low inventory, triggered by a lost decade of home construction that caused a shortfall of 1.35 million new homes in 35 metro areas alone, has met a massive wave of demand, fueling an ultracompetitive market and pushing housing costs to crisis levels in some markets. There is no easy fix, but building more homes is likely the most effective tool to rein in price growth. Zillow research has shown that modest densification measures — allowing two units on 10% of single-family lots across some of the largest U.S. metros — could help boost critically needed housing supply enough to meaningfully slow housing price growth. This latest survey shows a growing consensus among homeowners and renters that similar measures should be taken in their own neighborhoods to address affordability. 

Across the 29 metro areas Zillow surveyed, residents were more likely to support allowing accessory dwelling units (70% supported versus 23% opposed) and duplexes and triplexes (59% supported versus 34% opposed) in their neighborhoods. 

About half of those who opposed allowing at least one type of multifamily home said that they would be more supportive under certain conditions – like requiring that newly built multi-family homes be within a 15-minute walk of parks and recreation (54%), a 15-minute walk of frequent transit service (54%), or requiring that at least 10% be affordable to low and middle-income families (51%). 

While fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes and medium/large buildings generally did not garner majority support outright, respondents reported being more supportive of allowing new multifamily homes within a 15-minute walk of frequent transit, recreation, or with an affordability requirement for low and middle income families. For example, only 38% said they would support allowing large condo or apartment buildings in their neighborhood, but that number grew to 76% when including those that said they would be more supportive on a 15-minute or affordability condition.

Share of adults that say they would support allowing each home in their neighborhood OR who say that at least one multifamily condition (affordability, proximity to transit/recreation) would make them more supportive

ADUs Du/triplex Four/fiveplex Sixplex Small condo/apartment (fewer than 10 units) Medium condo/apartment (10-49 units) Large condo/apartment (50+ units)
Total 85% 80% 77% 77% 79% 77% 76%
Atlanta 83% 73% 72% 72% 74% 72% 72%
Baltimore 80% 74% 72% 70% 72% 73% 71%
Boston 87% 84% 80% 80% 81% 80% 80%
Chicago 82% 79% 75% 76% 77% 76% 73%
Cincinnati 82% 75% 71% 71% 73% 72% 73%
Dallas 83% 74% 72% 71% 73% 73% 72%
Denver 83% 78% 75% 75% 76% 75% 75%
Detroit 82% 74% 72% 72% 75% 74% 73%
Houston 83% 78% 73% 74% 74% 72% 72%
Jacksonville 84% 71% 70% 69% 70% 69% 69%
Las Vegas 86% 76% 75% 74% 75% 75% 74%
Los Angeles 89% 87% 85% 85% 85% 84% 83%
Miami 86% 82% 82% 81% 83% 82% 81%
Minneapolis 86% 79% 75% 74% 76% 75% 74%
Nashville 82% 73% 68% 68% 70% 69% 68%
New York 84% 81% 79% 78% 80% 80% 78%
Philadelphia 85% 79% 74% 74% 77% 74% 74%
Phoenix 85% 75% 72% 72% 76% 74% 73%
Raleigh 85% 77% 76% 75% 76% 76% 75%
Riverside 87% 82% 82% 80% 81% 80% 80%
Sacramento 80% 72% 71% 69% 70% 70% 69%
San Diego 84% 79% 74% 74% 77% 76% 73%
San Francisco 90% 86% 82% 82% 84% 84% 83%
San Jose 91% 81% 78% 78% 79% 77% 78%
Seattle 89% 85% 84% 82% 85% 84% 82%
Spokane 88% 78% 75% 75% 75% 74% 74%
St. Louis 82% 75% 69% 69% 71% 70% 69%
Tampa 86% 78% 75% 74% 76% 74% 73%
Washington DC 86% 81% 79% 79% 80% 79% 79%

 

ADUs Du/triplex Four/fiveplex Sixplex Small condo/apartment (fewer than 10 units) Medium condo/apartment (10-49 units) Large condo/apartment (50+ units)
Total 85% 80% 77% 77% 79% 77% 76%
Homeowner 82% 75% 72% 72% 73% 72% 71%
Renter 90% 89% 87% 86% 88% 87% 86%
Suburban 82% 75% 72% 72% 74% 72% 71%
Urban 90% 89% 87% 87% 87% 87% 86%
Gen Z (Ages 18 – 28) 93% 90% 89% 90% 89% 89% 88%
Millennial (Ages 29 – 43) 92% 89% 87% 87% 88% 87% 86%
Generation X (Ages 44 – 58) 85% 79% 75% 74% 76% 75% 75%
Boomers + Silent Gen (59+) 75% 67% 64% 64% 66% 64% 63%
Ages 18-29 93% 90% 89% 89% 90% 90% 88%
Ages 30-39 91% 89% 87% 87% 87% 86% 86%
Ages 40-49 89% 84% 81% 79% 82% 82% 81%
Ages 50-59 82% 74% 71% 71% 72% 72% 71%
Age 60+ 74% 66% 63% 62% 65% 63% 62%
White 82% 75% 72% 71% 73% 72% 71%
Black 89% 86% 84% 84% 85% 84% 83%
Latinx 88% 86% 84% 84% 85% 84% 83%
AAPI 87% 82% 80% 80% 82% 80% 80%
Other race 83% 78% 77% 75% 77% 76% 75%
Non-White 87% 84% 82% 82% 83% 83% 82%
Cisgender Heterosexual 84% 79% 76% 76% 77% 76% 75%
LGBTQ+ 90% 88% 87% 87% 88% 87% 87%
<$50K HH Income 85% 83% 81% 81% 82% 81% 80%
$50K-<$100K HH Income 85% 80% 77% 77% 79% 78% 77%
$100K+ HH Income 85% 78% 75% 75% 77% 76% 75%
Not registered to vote 80% 77% 75% 75% 76% 75% 74%
Registered to vote at current address 84% 78% 76% 75% 77% 76% 75%
Registered to vote before, but has not updated registration since moving 92% 91% 88% 89% 88% 89% 88%
Voted in Presidential election 84% 78% 75% 75% 77% 76% 75%
Did not vote in most recent presidential election 87% 83% 82% 82% 82% 82% 81%
Voted in congressional election (federal house and/or senate) 83% 76% 72% 72% 74% 73% 72%
Did not vote in most recent congressional election 87% 84% 82% 82% 83% 82% 81%
Voted in state government (state legislature, governor) election 83% 76% 73% 73% 75% 74% 73%
Did not vote in most recent state government election 87% 84% 82% 82% 82% 82% 81%
Voted in local government (city and/or county council, school board) election 83% 76% 72% 72% 74% 73% 71%
Did not vote in most recent local government election 87% 83% 82% 81% 82% 82% 81%
Employed 89% 84% 82% 81% 83% 82% 81%
Not Employed 76% 70% 66% 66% 68% 66% 66%

 

Share of adults that say they would support allowing each type of home in their neighborhood (without condition)

Support at least one ADUs Du/ triplex Four/ fiveplex Sixplex Small condo/ apartment (fewer than 10 units) Medium condo/ apartment (10-49 units) Large condo/ apartment (50+ units)
Total 82% 70% 59% 45% 40% 52% 45% 38%
Atlanta 77% 68% 48% 36% 34% 47% 42% 36%
Baltimore 77% 64% 48% 32% 25% 39% 36% 26%
Boston 82% 68% 61% 43% 37% 52% 44% 36%
Chicago 79% 66% 58% 44% 45% 52% 45% 39%
Cincinnati 79% 65% 49% 34% 26% 45% 38% 34%
Dallas 82% 71% 58% 44% 38% 46% 43% 38%
Denver 80% 69% 58% 43% 42% 49% 42% 36%
Detroit 80% 65% 51% 32% 27% 48% 42% 36%
Houston 81% 69% 54% 43% 36% 52% 44% 35%
Jacksonville 79% 72% 45% 31% 27% 38% 34% 29%
Las Vegas 81% 69% 51% 39% 38% 50% 44% 37%
Los Angeles 88% 81% 73% 59% 54% 64% 55% 48%
Miami 84% 65% 60% 49% 40% 59% 50% 46%
Minneapolis 84% 76% 61% 44% 38% 51% 40% 34%
Nashville 76% 68% 47% 30% 26% 38% 32% 24%
New York 82% 66% 62% 48% 42% 53% 50% 42%
Philadelphia 81% 70% 57% 41% 34% 48% 38% 32%
Phoenix 81% 71% 53% 39% 33% 47% 39% 33%
Raleigh 81% 67% 48% 33% 25% 40% 34% 24%
Riverside 85% 73% 60% 42% 35% 53% 45% 38%
Sacramento 79% 70% 55% 42% 33% 43% 35% 32%
San Diego 80% 68% 59% 37% 35% 50% 40% 31%
San Francisco 86% 77% 64% 46% 43% 54% 46% 39%
San Jose 89% 80% 63% 48% 43% 57% 45% 37%
Seattle 85% 76% 61% 51% 47% 55% 47% 41%
Spokane 85% 72% 58% 41% 36% 49% 36% 30%
St. Louis 81% 64% 52% 29% 30% 48% 35% 24%
Tampa 79% 68% 50% 35% 31% 46% 35% 29%
Washington DC 82% 69% 60% 48% 43% 58% 50% 41%

 

Support at least one ADUs Du/ triplex Four/ fiveplex Sixplex Small condo/ apartment (fewer than 10 units) Medium condo/ apartment (10-49 units) Large condo/ apartment (50+ units)
Total 82% 70% 59% 45% 40% 52% 45% 38%
Homeowner 78% 68% 53% 38% 34% 46% 39% 33%
Renter 89% 73% 71% 59% 51% 63% 57% 50%
Suburban 78% 67% 52% 36% 31% 46% 37% 30%
Urban 89% 74% 72% 61% 55% 65% 60% 53%
Gen Z (Ages 18 – 28) 91% 77% 67% 53% 52% 61% 55% 52%
Millennial (Ages 29 – 43) 91% 80% 73% 61% 56% 67% 62% 55%
Generation X (Ages 44 – 58) 82% 73% 60% 44% 39% 50% 44% 36%
Boomers + Silent Gen (59+) 69% 55% 41% 26% 20% 36% 26% 18%
Ages 18-29 92% 77% 68% 54% 52% 62% 56% 52%
Ages 30-39 90% 80% 73% 62% 57% 68% 62% 55%
Ages 40-49 88% 79% 70% 54% 47% 57% 53% 46%
Ages 50-59 78% 68% 50% 36% 30% 44% 37% 28%
Age 60+ 67% 53% 41% 24% 19% 35% 25% 18%
White 79% 69% 55% 39% 34% 47% 39% 33%
Black 84% 68% 66% 52% 46% 59% 54% 46%
Latinx 88% 73% 65% 55% 51% 60% 54% 49%
AAPI 82% 71% 58% 41% 35% 53% 45% 35%
Other race 82% 69% 53% 40% 35% 47% 39% 31%
Non-White 85% 71% 63% 50% 45% 57% 51% 43%
Cisgender Heterosexual 81% 69% 57% 43% 38% 51% 44% 36%
LGBTQ+ 91% 78% 73% 61% 54% 66% 59% 54%
<$50K HH Income 78% 65% 62% 49% 42% 55% 46% 40%
$50K-<$100K HH Income 81% 69% 57% 43% 37% 52% 44% 36%
$100K+ HH Income 92% 73% 59% 44% 40% 51% 45% 38%
Not registered to vote 83% 66% 55% 40% 36% 49% 42% 37%
Registered to vote at current address 82% 69% 57% 42% 36% 50% 42% 34%
Registered to vote before, but has not updated registration since moving 82% 77% 75% 65% 61% 67% 66% 61%
Voted in Presidential election 81% 70% 58% 43% 37% 52% 44% 36%
Did not vote in most recent presidential election 85% 69% 61% 49% 46% 53% 48% 44%
Voted in congressional election (federal house and/or senate) 79% 68% 55% 40% 35% 49% 40% 33%
Did not vote in most recent congressional election 85% 72% 63% 50% 44% 56% 50% 43%
Voted in state government (state legislature, governor) election 80% 69% 55% 40% 35% 49% 40% 34%
Did not vote in most recent state government election 84% 71% 63% 50% 45% 56% 51% 44%
Voted in local government (city and/or county council, school board) election 79% 69% 56% 39% 33% 48% 39% 32%
Did not vote in most recent local government election 84% 71% 62% 50% 45% 56% 51% 44%
Employed 86% 75% 64% 51% 46% 58% 52% 45%
Not Employed 72% 59% 46% 30% 25% 39% 30% 22%

 

Most respondents (69%) also said allowing small and medium apartment buildings would have a positive impact on the availability of more affordable housing options, but they split more evenly on apartment buildings in their own backyards: Across all the surveyed metros, 57% agreed they would support a multifamily residence like an apartment building being built in their neighborhood, while 36% disagreed. 

 

Allowing small and medium apartments in residential neighborhoods would have a positive impact on…

Availability of more affordable housing options Encourage residents to use public transportation or other alternatives to driving (e.g. walking, biking) Make alternatives to driving, such as public transportation, biking and walking more desirable
Total 70% 64% 66%
Atlanta 67% 57% 60%
Baltimore 62% 59% 61%
Boston 73% 63% 69%
Chicago 69% 67% 66%
Cincinnati 68% 58% 63%
Dallas 64% 60% 66%
Denver 71% 62% 61%
Detroit 66% 58% 59%
Houston 67% 59% 65%
Jacksonville 65% 57% 62%
Las Vegas 67% 59% 61%
Los Angeles 73% 72% 76%
Miami 74% 67% 69%
Minneapolis 70% 67% 69%
Nashville 61% 52% 53%
New York 70% 67% 66%
Philadelphia 67% 62% 64%
Phoenix 69% 61% 64%
Raleigh 66% 58% 62%
Riverside 68% 58% 63%
Sacramento 65% 61% 61%
San Diego 72% 57% 63%
San Francisco 75% 68% 68%
San Jose 78% 64% 64%
Seattle 74% 68% 67%
Spokane 71% 56% 62%
St. Louis 65% 55% 58%
Tampa 67% 58% 65%
Washington DC 77% 65% 72%

 

Availability of more affordable housing options Encourage residents to use public transportation or other alternatives to driving (e.g. walking, biking) Make alternatives to driving, such as public transportation, biking and walking more desirable
Total 70% 64% 66%
Homeowner 66% 59% 62%
Renter 78% 73% 74%
Suburban 65% 57% 61%
Urban 78% 77% 76%
Gen Z (Ages 18 – 28) 77% 76% 75%
Millennial (Ages 29 – 43) 81% 76% 79%
Generation X (Ages 44 – 58) 70% 62% 65%
Boomers + Silent Gen (59+) 56% 48% 51%
Ages 18-29 77% 75% 76%
Ages 30-39 81% 77% 79%
Ages 40-49 76% 67% 71%
Ages 50-59 67% 58% 59%
Age 60+ 55% 47% 52%
White 67% 59% 62%
Black 75% 71% 73%
Latinx 75% 73% 72%
AAPI 68% 64% 67%
Other race 65% 57% 64%
Non-White 73% 69% 71%
Cisgender Heterosexual 69% 63% 65%
LGBTQ+ 80% 76% 77%
<$50K HH Income 62% 62% 63%
$50K-<$100K HH Income 68% 61% 64%
$100K+ HH Income 83% 79% 81%
Not registered to vote 71% 65% 68%
Registered to vote at current address 69% 64% 65%
Registered to vote before, but has not updated registration since moving 70% 64% 66%
Voted in Presidential election 70% 63% 65%
Did not vote in most recent presidential election 70% 67% 69%
Voted in congressional election (federal house and/or senate) 68% 59% 61%
Did not vote in most recent congressional election 72% 69% 71%
Voted in state government (state legislature, governor) election 68% 59% 63%
Did not vote in most recent state government election 72% 69% 70%
Voted in local government (city and/or county council, school board) election 68% 58% 62%
Did not vote in most recent local government election 71% 69% 70%
Employed 74% 69% 71%
Not Employed 59% 51% 54%

 

Opponents who reported opposing every type of multifamily home (15% of adults surveyed), though, were less likely to say that each condition would make them more supportive: Only about one in five said requiring that at least 10% of new units be affordable to low and middle income families would make them more supportive (19%, versus 57% who said it would make them more opposed). A slightly higher share said that requiring that newly built multifamily homes be within a 15-minute walk from parks and recreation (23%) or frequent transit (23%) would make them more supportive. Under half (43%) said these same 15-minute requirements would make them more opposed.

 

Results are largely similar among registered voters: 69% say they support allowing ADUs in their neighborhood, and 57% say they support allowing duplexes and triplexes. Adults who had registered to vote previously – but who had not updated their registration since their last move – were most likely to express support for allowing more types of homes in their neighborhoods, like ADUs (77%), du/triplexes (75%), four/fiveplexes (65%), sixplexes (61%), and small (67%), medium (66%), and large (61%) condos/apartments. 

 

Younger residents, renters, people of color and LGBTQ+ respondents were more likely to express support for allowing accessory dwelling units, duplexes and triplexes in residential neighborhoods, and were more likely to agree that they would support building each type of home in their own neighborhoods. These more supportive demographics, though, were less likely to report having up-to-date voter registration. For example, 65% of LGBTQ+ respondents said they were registered to vote at their current address, versus 77% among cisgender heterosexual respondents.

 

Across the metros, most respondents said that allowing duplexes and triplexes would have a positive impact on most neighborhood characteristics they were asked about. The largest share of respondents felt this would positively impact neighborhood amenities (69%) and affordability (69%), followed by access to public transportation (64%), a sense of community and belonging (63%), neighborhood look and feel (58%), and the value of existing homes (55%). Most respondents (76%) also said that allowing homeowners to add additional units to their property would have a positive impact on enabling them to care for aging family members. 

 

Share of adults that agreed somewhat/strongly with each statement

I am worried about the cost of housing in my neighborhood Local governments should do more to keep housing in this city affordable Homeowners should be allowed to convert their homes to add additional housing units (e.g. single-family to duplex, adding a mother- in-law unit, etc.) Multi-family housing units are acceptable in my neighborhood if they fit into the general “look and feel” of the neighborhood I’m very worried about traffic and parking in my neighborhood I would support a multi-family residence, such as an apartment building or complex, being built in my neighborhood I would be willing to invest money to make my property a multi-family lot if it were allowed Having more affordable housing in my community is more important than free parking for myself
Total 65% 82% 70% 63% 48% 57% 46% 62%
Atlanta 59% 81% 65% 56% 43% 50% 43% 61%
Baltimore 55% 78% 70% 55% 43% 47% 33% 56%
Boston 66% 85% 74% 67% 44% 60% 43% 64%
Chicago 65% 82% 70% 61% 49% 60% 42% 58%
Cincinnati 51% 79% 62% 53% 40% 49% 35% 57%
Dallas 69% 76% 67% 58% 50% 56% 48% 61%
Denver 73% 79% 70% 60% 49% 57% 41% 59%
Detroit 55% 80% 64% 61% 35% 50% 40% 60%
Houston 62% 82% 64% 62% 50% 50% 49% 63%
Jacksonville 61% 83% 64% 48% 43% 48% 39% 61%
Las Vegas 62% 84% 63% 59% 45% 52% 45% 59%
Los Angeles 72% 85% 76% 72% 58% 64% 60% 68%
Miami 67% 82% 65% 68% 52% 61% 51% 64%
Minneapolis 61% 81% 70% 66% 37% 54% 35% 61%
Nashville 61% 79% 66% 51% 42% 41% 37% 56%
New York 65% 84% 71% 66% 49% 62% 49% 65%
Philadelphia 57% 77% 71% 61% 42% 51% 38% 54%
Phoenix 65% 79% 69% 56% 45% 51% 42% 61%
Raleigh 59% 78% 59% 53% 41% 45% 35% 62%
Riverside 66% 84% 70% 56% 46% 51% 47% 61%
Sacramento 70% 77% 69% 57% 46% 48% 40% 59%
San Diego 76% 83% 71% 69% 53% 56% 47% 58%
San Francisco 71% 84% 77% 69% 58% 60% 47% 63%
San Jose 70% 86% 80% 73% 57% 56% 51% 61%
Seattle 75% 86% 76% 66% 55% 58% 42% 68%
Spokane 75% 85% 69% 52% 45% 49% 32% 65%
St. Louis 50% 78% 65% 55% 39% 44% 28% 50%
Tampa 62% 84% 67% 56% 51% 47% 40% 63%
Washington DC 64% 84% 74% 62% 44% 57% 53% 63%
Homeowner 60% 80% 68% 60% 47% 49% 44% 56%
Renter 76% 87% 74% 70% 52% 72% 52% 74%
Suburban 62% 79% 65% 57% 42% 48% 39% 55%
Urban 71% 89% 79% 75% 60% 73% 59% 74%
Gen Z (Ages 18 – 28) 68% 87% 77% 67% 49% 66% 58% 73%
Millennial (Ages 29 – 43) 70% 85% 78% 75% 56% 74% 66% 74%
Generation X (Ages 44 – 58) 69% 84% 72% 65% 49% 56% 47% 62%
Boomers + Silent Gen (59+) 55% 76% 58% 49% 40% 37% 21% 46%
Ages 18-29 68% 87% 77% 68% 50% 67% 59% 73%
Ages 30-39 70% 85% 79% 75% 57% 74% 66% 73%
Ages 40-49 71% 86% 78% 71% 54% 67% 57% 71%
Ages 50-59 67% 79% 66% 58% 45% 47% 39% 55%
Age 60+ 55% 76% 57% 49% 39% 35% 19% 45%
White 62% 80% 67% 61% 45% 50% 38% 58%
Black 64% 91% 75% 67% 45% 67% 54% 71%
Latinx 69% 82% 75% 67% 56% 67% 60% 69%
AAPI 74% 85% 67% 63% 49% 55% 49% 59%
Other race 66% 80% 68% 58% 51% 49% 39% 57%
Non-White 68% 85% 73% 65% 51% 63% 54% 66%
Cisgender Heterosexual 64% 82% 70% 62% 47% 55% 45% 61%
LGBTQ+ 74% 87% 75% 72% 59% 69% 59% 75%
<$50K HH Income 63% 77% 67% 57% 42% 57% 42% 61%
$50K-<$100K HH Income 64% 82% 69% 62% 47% 53% 43% 60%
$100K+ HH Income 70% 87% 82% 76% 61% 75% 69% 77%
Not registered to vote 69% 83% 69% 64% 50% 62% 48% 67%
Registered to vote at current address 67% 83% 71% 61% 48% 54% 44% 63%
Registered to vote before, but has not updated registration since moving 62% 81% 71% 64% 48% 55% 47% 59%
Voted in Presidential election 64% 83% 70% 63% 48% 54% 43% 61%
Did not vote in most recent presidential election 67% 80% 70% 63% 50% 62% 53% 64%
Voted in congressional election (federal house and/or senate) 63% 79% 67% 60% 48% 51% 39% 57%
Did not vote in most recent congressional election 67% 86% 73% 66% 49% 63% 53% 67%
Voted in state government (state legislature, governor) election 63% 81% 68% 61% 47% 50% 40% 58%
Did not vote in most recent state government election 67% 84% 73% 65% 50% 64% 53% 67%
Voted in local government (city and/or county council, school board) election 64% 81% 68% 61% 46% 49% 38% 57%
Did not vote in most recent local government election 66% 84% 72% 65% 50% 63% 53% 67%
Employed 68% 85% 75% 69% 52% 63% 55% 67%
Not Employed 57% 76% 59% 50% 41% 40% 25% 50%

 

About half, however, said allowing such homes would have a negative impact on parking and traffic (48%). On this point, though, 62% agreed with the statement “Having more affordable housing in my community is more important than free parking for myself.”

 

Homeowners should be allowed to convert their homes to add additional housing units (e.g., single-family to duplex, adding a mother-in-law unit, etc.) 2019 2022 2023
Total – Among homeowners only 57% 64% 68%
Atlanta 54% 57% 61%
Boston 63% 72% 69%
Chicago 52% 68% 67%
Dallas 51% 63% 66%
Denver 54% 57% 70%
Detroit 47% 56% 62%
Las Vegas 52% 56% 61%
Los Angeles 57% 70% 75%
Miami 63% 57% 65%
Minneapolis 57% 55% 68%
New York 55% 66% 70%
Philadelphia 58% 68% 68%
Phoenix 50% 60% 64%
St. Louis 53% 60% 63%
San Diego 70% 62% 74%
San Francisco 64% 64% 75%
San Jose 60% 66% 82%
Seattle 67% 69% 73%
Tampa 58% 65% 67%
Washington, D.C. 59% 59% 73%

 

Methodology

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of adults ages 18 and older, Zillow Group Population Science conducted a representative survey of more than 14,000 adults across 29 metros: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Raleigh, Riverside, St. Louis, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Spokane, Tampa and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas. The survey was fielded in March 2023.

 

Sampling & weighting

Results from this survey are representative of adults in each metropolitan area. To achieve representativeness, ZG Population Science used a two-pronged approach. First, the initial recruitment to the sample was balanced to all adults from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) on the basis of age, relationship status, income, ethnicity/race, education and sex. Additional targeted subgroups were sampled based on all key household demographic characteristics. Second, statistical raking was used to create calibration weights to ensure that the distribution of survey respondents matched each metro’s population with respect to a number of key demographic characteristics. 

Across 29 Metro Areas, Residents Largely Support Allowing Missing Middle Homes in Residential Neighborhoods