Canberra's Missing middle - Archer Design Studio

Written by: Erin Rogers

November 2025

Photography: Taylah Cunningham Photography

Canberra's Missing Middle

Through practising within the realm of residential spaces, I often reflect on the variety, scale and density of housing throughout Canberra and the way in which we interact with and inhabit our streets, suburbs and city. Often this way of interaction is seen as something that, for our own comfort and familiarity’s sake, is static, with change (particularly in density) being the end of everything good.

Conversely, the (all too pragmatic) conversations around the housing crisis, housing supply targets, urban sprawl and in particular, the ‘Missing Middle’ can often seem too far in juxtaposition to the way we have apparently decided we like to live. Of course, there are many layers of (again, all too pragmatic) political conversations around social, financial and sustainable targets that are to a loose extent out of our control. However, to reference the work of Robin Boyd, you cannot change the outcome until you change the public conversation. Evidently, the outcome of widespread adoption of quality and successful medium density housing is something that is yet to be evidenced in a Canberran context.

We can find many contemporary and historic examples of medium density houses, streets and suburbs in Australia that feel appropriate and comfortable for their time and place. To reference some recognisable historic examples, look to the Federation Terrace houses that occupy Paddington and Surry Hills in Sydney and the Victorian Terrace houses that occupy Fitzroy and South Yarra in Melbourne. Often these places can be vibrant, with interconnected communities that have a language, culture and identity of their own. It can be evident as well that when new building work is inserted amongst these places, the consideration and commitment to sympathetically responding to the heritage value and context is not only instinctual but revered.

In Canberra, we have not yet succeeded in integrating this scale of dwelling, street or level of cultural attachment seen elsewhere. We have a particularly stark contrast between predominantly single homes sprawling across huge areas of low-density suburbs, or higher density homes that are often poor quality and severely compromised. Recognising these opposite ends of the housing spectrum was the first step to be able to begin to work in this space between, now we are faced with the question of what to do there.

Recently, the ACT Government have been looking to encourage development in this space with the ‘Missing Middle’ reforms, looking to make infill opportunities more legislatively accessible, hopefully for a wider range of people, not just developers as is historically evident. Although we already have measures and opportunities in place within the current Territory Plan to allow a variety of adaptive low-rise medium density housing typologies, the amendments seek to relax or remove some legislative barriers while still upholding the character and amenity of established neighbourhoods. From a governance point of view, this simply seeks to deliver more homes within the existing urban footprint with minimal intervention.

Currently the ‘Missing Middle’ reform is under review as a draft major amendment to the Territory Plan. Some of the draft amendments the ACT Government are looking to make are:

Removing the minimum block size specification for two dwellings, secondary residence and co-housing in RZ1 areas
Remove the maximum dwelling per site limit
Allowing apartments in RZ1 areas (up to two storeys)
Remove the maximum 120m2 floor area specification to second dwellings
Allow more opportunity for subdivision and consolidation of blocks
Allowing up to three storeys (+ attic) for multi-unit housing in RZ2 areas; among other amendments.

You can read more in the Missing Middle Housing Reform Snapshot.

The Lease variation charge (LVC) remains a large financial barrier for many homeowners, something that has been repeatedly criticised through the public consultation process with people saying the reforms will, in fact, still largely benefit developers. It is also important to note that the amendments don’t mean that a property will automatically be eligible to build multiple dwellings. The reform will remove some legislative barriers however many layers of policy and compliance still need to be met.

Through definition, low rise densification is not all town houses and apartment buildings, in fact some of the most successful dwellings are those that challenge the ideas around the way we live and what we expect a home to be. These are of course explored within the realm of traditional housing typologies and legislative terminology:

Dual Occupancy (often also referred to as: two dwellings/second dwelling): Two individual dwellings on one block of land, the block can be subdivided or unit titled (depending on the block zoning), where each dwelling can be sold separately.

Terrace House: Multiple row house type dwellings with adjoining walls on one block of land, the block can be subdivided or unit titled (depending on the block zoning), where each dwelling can be sold separately.

Townhouse: Multiple dwellings, either with or without adjoining walls, on one block of land that are unit titled and can be sold separately.

Low-rise apartments: Multiple apartment type dwellings that are stacked vertically above one another on one block of land that are unit titled and can be sold separately.

Secondary Residence: A self-contained, second dwelling on a residential block that is subordinate to a primary dwelling, the two homes remain under the one lease and cannot be subdivided or sold separately.

In determining the building typology, we, in the words of Kerstin Thompson, ‘orchestrate the nature of the relationships between public, private and common spaces, as well as between one house to the next’. This is to say that the consideration of the typology is to loosely determine its interaction with its surroundings. It is not to say that only apartments can have common spaces, and only single dwellings can have private back yards and leafy streets but that the forming of a private space is to inevitably form the public space, and all the perceived or actual layers in between. The implications of what we build, including the scale and quality, greatly affects the composition of the street and neighbourhood of which it is integrated.

In practice, the practical considerations of overshadowing, solar access and privacy to neighbours don’t need to be by the sacrifice of the functionality or liveability of the proposed dwelling/s. The opposite may be true in that responding to existing conditions allows opportunities for unexpected and beneficial interactions. Reducing footprint, scale or retreating from a block boundary, for example, can result in more light, improved passive ventilation and greater perceived space to adjoining landscapes. It is through being empathetic in design and anticipating the implications of design decisions, both within and outside the confines of the individual dwelling, that better quality, and therefore higher value outcomes are realised.

In designing with sensitivity and a deep consideration of place, context and climate we can look to be better neighbours and contribute to or enhance our established neighbourhoods.

We are dedicated to exploring the opportunities of medium density housing with our clients. Through completing feasibility studies that analyse and clarify a sites multifaceted regulatory overlays, drawing on conceptual master planning and reporting on these findings, we look to clarify the design and planning process to determine if this avenue is appropriate for the client and site.