Liam Beran
The Marquette neighborhood.
Established neighborhoods, like Marquette, could see more dense housing.
Madison’s housing stock, like that of most American cities, was shaped by the post-World War II economic boom.
Cars were becoming the transportation mode of choice and families were moving to the suburbs. Madison’s new neighborhoods reflected these changes — places like Hill Farms and Hoyt Park, both largely developed in the mid-1950s, had larger lot sizes, were more reliant on automobiles for transit and consisted predominantly of single-family homes.
In 1966, Madison’s city council — overseeing a population of 166,000 — enacted the city’s third zoning code. For the next 50 years it pushed city development toward single-family housing.
“Our 1966 code was driven to orient more towards suburban growth,” says Matt Tucker, director of the city’s building inspection division and the city’s former zoning administrator. “Density was discouraged in many ways.”
At the same time, racial housing segregation in Madison was enforced through still-legal housing discrimination and the high cost of single-family homes. Black people in Madison were largely confined to South Madison, Greenbush — whose residents were later displaced when the neighborhood was razed and redeveloped — and the near-east side, according to a 1959 NAACP study. Though a quarter of residents surveyed wished to move, prices in other neighborhoods were high and real estate agents would often only show them neighborhoods in south Madison or refuse to serve them.
The result: Black residents and other people of color were denied the chance to build generational wealth, one of the key determinants for financial mobility, resulting in inequities that persist today. Black residents remain the least likely racial group in Madison to own the home they live in — 18%, compared to 53% for white people, according to a 2023 city housing report.
The 1966 code was replaced in 2013. Though comprehensive zoning reform isn’t currently on the table, three ordinances introduced June 11 do aim to undo the impacts of exclusionary zoning.
“To a certain extent, it’s about legalizing our most popular neighborhoods,” Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, one of the co-sponsors of the ordinances, tells Isthmus. “Our most popular neighborhoods in Madison were built under different zoning.”
One proposal would allow duplexes to be built in any residentially-zoned neighborhood in the city; around one-third of Madison’s neighborhoods already allow this. Another would allow residents with “deep lots,” twice the minimum lot size, to split their lot and construct another home in the back lot. And the third raises the density and height threshold that prompts the need for a conditional use permit in downtown zoning districts.
Despite some early criticism — Capital Times publisher Paul Fanlund called the reforms “fairly radical” in a June column, arguing that the city council and Rhodes-Conway’s administration are ignoring the concerns of homeowners — support for the package is widespread among council members. As of publication, 14 alders have cosponsored the duplex proposal, 15 the backyard lot proposal and 12 the downtown development proposal.
Even some typically cast as skeptics of the council’s housing policy are on board. West-side Ald. Bill Tishler says he supports that the proposals simplify the rules for duplex development and “deep lot” subdivisions.
“I have no problem with duplexes,” says Tishler. “We have a lot of quad units in District 11. Residents are already used to this.”
Wisconsin Historical Society
An aerial photo of the Triangle Redevelopment Project from 1967.
The city’s redevelopment plans for the ‘Triangle’ displaced many low-income residents.
Supporters say they’re hoping to facilitate the mix of housing density seen in neighborhoods like Tenney-Lapham, Marquette or Schenk-Atwood, where it’s common to see duplexes alongside single-family homes. They also say that they want to give residents of different races, ages and income levels housing options.
“If we want a community that is culturally, racially and economically diverse, we have to build more homes, and we have to make these homes affordable for ordinary, working people,” Ald. Tag Evers, a co-sponsor of all three proposals, said at a June 11 press conference.
Building more duplexes will support neighborhood diversity, supporters argue. People of color and low-income residents are significantly more likely to be renters, and renting a duplex tends to be less expensive than renting a single-family home. Madison has seen fewer new duplexes in recent years: permits issued for smaller multi-unit developments fell after 2019, according to the 2023 city housing report, which said the decrease was “likely due to increased cost and supply chain issues.”
Alds. Will Ochowicz and MGR Govindarajan tell Isthmus that they would like to see triplexes and fourplexes allowed in residential districts. But Wisconsin’s building codes are a stumbling block. Triplexes and larger multi-unit buildings are considered commercial developments and fall under commercial building codes.
“It is less likely that a smaller commercial building is going to get built,” says Rhodes-Conway, citing higher regulatory standards. “Once you’re in the commercial code, you’re probably going to want something that has a greater unit count.”
Liam Beran
Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway at a press conference.
Mayor Rhodes-Conway: ‘It’s about legalizing our most popular neighborhoods.’
Permitting duplexes won’t necessarily lead to an immediate influx of two-unit homes in the city, says Tucker. Unless a single-family home is “literally falling apart,” notes Ochowicz, it’s unlikely that a developer or property owner would tear it down to build a duplex.
“What is more likely to happen is that somebody subdivides an existing home,” says Ochowicz. “Opening up the number of opportunities for that is going to hopefully increase housing production.”
The cost to do that could still be prohibitive for lower-income residents — converting a single-family home into a duplex costs tens of thousands of dollars, with surging lumber prices providing an additional impediment. Tishler says he’d like to see the city invest further in helping homeowners convert their homes into duplexes.
“I think we need to open up the opportunity to create incentives for owner occupancy,” says Tishler.
The backyard lot proposal expands upon the city’s push to simplify development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Around 3,800 lots, largely concentrated on the city’s west and east sides, would be eligible for backyard lot subdivision under the proposal, according to a planning division analysis. Unlike ADUs, which are limited to 1,000 square feet and tied to ownership in an existing home, developments in these lots could be separately owned and are subject only to the zoning restrictions in their zoning district.
Tucker and other supporters argue the recently introduced package, as a whole, represents incremental change: “We’re not Houston. You’re not going to be building a 20-story building next to single-family homes.”
Rhodes-Conway says the ordinances will not just address the city’s need for more housing, but maintain its sense of character.
“I understand people are concerned. We have great neighborhoods in Madison, and people want to keep that vibrancy,” Rhodes-Conway said at the June 11 news conference. “I noticed we didn’t start it, but like, ‘Keep Madison weird,’ right? I actually think that this will help us do that.”
[Editor's note: This article was corrected to note that 3,800, not 3,200, lots would be eligible for a backyard lot according to a planning division analysis.]
