We Shouldn’t Fear the Change Diverse Housing Types Herald

Aerial view of a typical, established R-1 neighborhood in Eugene (Imagery: © 2018 Google)

It's human nature to be wary of change. Change is perturbing and stressful. We instinctively cling to the few certainties we can count on. They constitute our comfort zone. It’s no surprise many of us want our neighborhoods to stay just the way they are now. We don’t want them to change, especially if we intend to stay in our current homes for a long time. 

The problem is, as much as we’d like to forestall change, no one can avoid it: We work for decades but eventually retire. Our children grow up and leave the nest. We may separate or divorce, dramatically altering our life’s equation. We’re not immune to the possibility of financial misfortune or encountering health problems. We certainly can’t escape becoming older and less capable of maintaining the lifestyle we may presently enjoy. Change is simply a fact of life. 

Leaving our comfort zone is unsettling but we’ll need to if we and our communities are to adapt and thrive. Today’s housing affordability crisis is a case in point. Resistance to the introduction of new and creative housing solutions responsive to our changing demographics and marketplace is symptomatic of our fear of change, but we ignore it at our own peril. We instinctively know this but many Eugeneans reflexively resist change rather than embracing the possibilities inherent in new opportunities. We do this even though we may one day directly benefit from the availability of a greater breadth of housing options, such as those that allow us to gracefully age in place. 

Those fortunate enough to be housing-secure can easily misjudge how the lack of affordable housing impacts our entire community. Rather than fearing the housing affordability challenge and the change it portends, we need to confront it to preserve the qualities we find most attractive about life in Eugene. 

Growth here has widened a disparity between the supply of housing and the tremendous demand for affordable options. Increasing the breadth and availability of a range of housing types is part of the solution to a problem that threatens Eugene’s resilience and everyone’s standard of living. For example, “missing middle” housing types—which include side-by-side and stacked duplexes, bungalow courts, carriage houses, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and accessory dwelling units—can provide a range of choices, a range that presently is conspicuously absent here. 

Done well, what missing middle housing looks like belies the density possible; higher densities do not necessarily translate to bigger buildings. Keeping individual units small is the secret; 600 to 700 square feet apiece is often enough. Side-by-side duplexes can achieve a density of 12-19 dwelling units per acre; townhouses, up to 29 units per acre. As many as 50 DU/acre are possible with courtyard apartment configurations. Densities of 16 DU/acre or more are sufficient to support a nearby main street with locally-focused businesses and public transportation. 

All well and good, but where can we provide expanded housing opportunities while fulfilling the affordability, compact urban development, and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene? The intractability of concerned residents within long-established R-1 districts has proven to be a considerable obstacle, and yet it’s clear overcoming that obstacle is necessary to responsibly address our community’s growth and change. If we do nothing we will effectively accept financially gated neighborhoods in our midst, contrary to our better natures. 

Clearly, the market is demanding change. We need to provide a critical mass of housing to support complete, diverse, and walkable neighborhoods, while reducing pressures for development on the urban periphery. Taking R-1 districts off the table is problematic because so much of our land within our growth boundary is presently locked up inside them. 

All neighborhoods change over time. The recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older neighborhoods unique, but also demands creative, inspired design. This may be the reason why it is elusive: the making of good, deferential architecture that respects its context isn’t always assured. Regardless, it’s clear our housing stock needs diversification to adequately address the myriad ways Eugene is changing. Certainly, managing change by densifying established neighborhoods will only work if it is the outcome of a community and neighbors-driven process that dives deeply into issues of structural form, market demand, affordability, and traffic impact. Lacking such a process, the inevitable results will be continued resistance. 

The housing affordability puzzle is enormously complex and certainly one a jiggering of our land use codes alone will not solve. Cities by themselves cannot attend to the deep structural issues responsible for a globally confounding problem. That said, we know fostering innovation in our housing rather than stifling it is necessary. The affordability crisis demands a ladder of housing opportunities.  Introducing new housing types within the fabric of R-1 districts won’t eliminate the problem but they can help address a range of issues beyond affordability. This is change we should not fear.