Missing Middle Housing infographic by Better Housing Together
As
I mentioned in a previous post, Oregon governor Kate Brown signed HB 2001
into law this past August. The bill—which enjoyed support from both sides of
the aisle—requires all cities with a population greater than 10,000 to open up
single-family zoned neighborhoods to the construction of duplexes, while cities
of 25,000 people or more must allow triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and
cottage clusters in addition to duplexes. Backers of HB 2001 believe by
encouraging a broader set of housing options, it will foster the development of
more connected, climate-resilient neighborhoods of greater economic and
demographic diversity.
To
conform with HB 2001, Eugene must amend its code for its R-1 single-family
residential zone by June 30, 2022 to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
cottage clusters on individual lots. HB 2001 does exempt areas with restrictive
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Adding
to the mix of housing types within established residential neighborhoods is a central
tenet of planners working today to increase housing choice while discouraging
urban sprawl. Expanding the urban growth boundary to avoid density hasn’t been
tenable since Senate Bill 100 took effect back in 1973. Relieving the pressures
of population growth does require densification. Predictably though, there has
been consistent opposition from longtime residents within established
neighborhoods who fear the changes that are sure to come with increased
density. The discussion between advocates for densification and defenders of
the status quo has been contentious and uncompromising.
The
fact is many households today simply do not fit the mold of those for which the
single-family house paradigm evolved during the 20th century. The middle-class
nuclear family comprised of married parents with 2.5 children no longer
dominates the social landscape. Households comprised of solely of elderly retirees, couples
without kids, and individuals are ubiquitous. As the cost of housing rises, the
numbers of those seeking the most affordable housing options increases as well.
Meeting their need is the challenge the authors of HB 2001 believe they are
helping to address.
The
problem with HB 2001 is that it doesn’t include any direct or indirect
provisions requiring developers to create housing that is affordable to
households that are “housing-cost burdened.” The bill merely mandates the
possible inclusion of missing-middle types in neighborhoods presently zoned
exclusively for single-family homes.
There
is a large deficit in Eugene of affordable housing for very-low income
households (those defined as having incomes below $25,000 per year). Market-rate
projects will not meet the needs of VLI households. Such developments are
simply beyond their reach. Faith in a “trickle-down” effect—that inserting a
mix of missing middle types into R-1 neighborhoods will relieve the downward
pressure on the most affordable properties—may not be rewarded because the
upzoned land becomes most valuable and attractive to developers who are looking
to maximize its profit potential.
The
unintended consequence of HB 2001 may be the exact opposite of its envisioned
purpose: increased rent for lower-range rentals and increased purchase price
for lower-cost homes. If this occurs, the result will be displacement of
lower-income households.
Portland
is facing the same challenges as it comes to grips with the repercussions of HB
2001. The chair of that city’s Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC), Andre Baugh, is concerned its proposed Residential Infill Project will
displace certain populations (read: those most vulnerable at the lower end of
the socioeconomic spectrum, which historically have been racial and ethnic
minorities) faster than others in pursuit of the greater good. Even if more
housing is created under Portland’s proposed program, it will most likely not
be affordable. The displaced households will have no place in the city at all. The
benefits associated with compact urban development will not be shared equally.
I found Commissioner Baugh’s commentary during a February 12, 2019 PSC briefing
very compelling.
The
challenge of providing affordable housing options while also meeting goals for
affordability and sustainability goals is vexing. I firmly believe increasing
choice makes sense simply because our demographics are changing and our housing
stock should evolve to address that change. Moreover, our community must do a better
job of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable—those who require affordable
housing or are at greatest risk of being displaced. This means providing a
range of housing options but also providing it in a way that best addresses the
affordability crisis.
It’s
possible the only viable solution for creating truly affordable housing is with
the assistance of government subsidies, such as Eugene’s Multiple-Unit
Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE), that help balance the equation. Without
such subsidies, the marketplace alone is unlikely to step up and take on the
housing affordability challenge. Additionally, the City needs to intelligently
plan where best to encourage the creation of that housing while fulfilling the
compact urban development and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene. Capitalizing
upon the investments in the EmX bus rapid transit network by concentrating new housing along its corridors should be central to the Eugene and Springfield
city governments’ broader strategy of managing future growth and fostering
transit-oriented development.
Brentwood Town Centre in the
Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, developed around two stations along the Millennium
Line of the Skytrain regional rapid transit system. My parents live in the
building with the arrow.
Vancouver,
B.C. (the place where I was born and raised) is the poster child in North
America for encouraging growth around and along transit centers and corridors.
The results are the fulfillment of a vision for Vancouver that began in the
1970s. Its success is unquestioned and has served as a model for other cities to emulate. Vancouver has absorbed considerable population growth
while reducing reliance upon the automobile and protecting iconic single-family
neighborhoods. At the same time, the city’s desirability as a place to live
pushed housing costs to stratospheric elevations (as of June 2019, the average
sale price of a detached, single-family home was $1,486,620 CDN, which is
actually down more than 11% from 2018). To help address the crisis-level need,
governments at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels have all provided
funding and incentives for below-market housing. Without these subsidies, the
institutionalized social inequities would be entirely indefensible.
Eugene
needs to comply with HB 2001. I’m enough of a realist to know the legislation
by itself is not the panacea. Truly providing affordable housing options requires
a holistic approach, one in which concerns associated with community
livability, sustainability, economic health, containing pressures to expand the
urban growth boundary, and housing choice are all factors. This is not the time
for siloed thinking. The problem is broader than the implications of HB 2001 in
isolation.
No comments:
Post a Comment