Across Southeastern Wisconsin, municipalities are searching for ways to increase housing supply without dramatically altering neighborhood character. One approach frequently discussed is “missing middle” housing. This refers to small-scale multifamily buildings such as duplexes, townhomes, and walk-up apartments that sit between single-family homes and large apartment complexes.

 

A recently completed project in West Allis delivers a practical look at what it takes to deliver that type of housing in today’s regulatory and financial environment.

 

Union Green, located along West Greenfield Avenue near the Six Points Farmers Market district, is a 19-unit development consisting of eight three-bedroom townhomes and an 11-unit walk-up apartment building with ground-floor commercial space. The project replaced a long-vacant restaurant property and reconfigured adjacent parkland.

 

While modest in size, the development illustrates several structural realities confronting similar projects in the Milwaukee region.

City officials consolidated multiple parcels and rezoned the site to a commercial district where multifamily housing is permitted by right. The rezoning required a public hearing but did not involve a conditional use process.

 

During a panel discussion held at the site, project participants noted that zoning reform, which is often central to housing debates, was not the main obstacle in delivering Union Green.

 

In their assessment, zoning was the most manageable of the challenges.

 

More major constraints emerged in building code compliance and financing structure.

Small multifamily buildings are regulated under the same building code framework as larger, more complicated structures. Requirements related to fire separation, sprinkler systems, electrical routing, and utility separations apply regardless of project size.

 

In the case of Union Green, compliance decisions directly affected both design and budget. Code distinctions between townhome-style construction and small apartment buildings added cost and complexity. Demolition standards and utility requirements also influenced feasibility.

 

For larger projects, these costs are distributed across dozens or hundreds of units. At 19 units, each added requirement has a more concentrated financial impact.

 

Panelists characterized building code, not zoning, as the most important structural barrier to scaling missing middle housing.

From a financing standpoint, larger multifamily developments correspond more predictably with established underwriting models. They distribute risk across more units and are more familiar with institutional lenders.

 

By contrast, modest-scale developments often require layered financing and greater personal commitment from developers.

 

Union Green relied on private equity and tax-incremental financing (TIF) to support site preparation and redevelopment costs, as well as municipal land assembly. The development team described personal guarantees and equity participation as central components of the capital stack.

 

At this scale, risk is less distributed and more concentrated. The financial model requires conviction, alignment, and joint effort between public and private actors.

City officials described the redevelopment as a coordinated effort involving planning, economic development, and the Community Development Authority

.

The project required parcel assembly, rezoning, demolition, and the relocation and reconfiguration of a public green space. The development agreement incorporated open-book accounting and shared-savings provisions to preserve transparency.

 

Union Green also benefits from its position within a wider redevelopment corridor that has seen recent multifamily and retail investment. Its success is tied not only to the site itself but to surrounding infrastructure, amenities, and existing momentum.

The development was intentionally designed at a scale between single-family neighborhoods and larger corridor apartment buildings.

 

Each apartment unit is configured as a corner unit within a single-stair layout. Townhomes include individual entries and attached garages. The reconfigured park, as well as proximity to neighborhood retail, were central to the development concept.

 

Rather than maximizing density, the project demonstrates how modest-scale housing can be inserted into an established urban context to reinforce walkability and neighborhood continuity.

Union Green illustrates that delivering “missing middle” housing involves more than adjusting zoning ordinances.

 

Building code interpretation, demolition standards, infrastructure considerations, financing structures, and municipal partnerships all shape feasibility.

 

For communities seeking to expand housing supply without pursuing large-scale development, projects of this size may represent an effective route. At the same time, the experience in West Allis underscores that smaller projects are not necessarily simpler.

 

In the current regulatory and financial environment, modest-scale housing often requires complex coordination and concentrated risk.

 

Union Green does not function as a universal template. Instead, it offers a clear example of how housing delivery is evolving in Greater Milwaukee, as well as the structural realities that must be addressed if missing middle housing is to become more common.