Stepping in It

 

As I suspect many other homeowners residing in one of Eugene’s R-1 low-density neighborhoods did, my wife and I received a mailer from Housing-Facts.org this past week beseeching us to learn more about the City of Eugene’s pending Middle Housing code amendments. The City of Eugene must implement amendments to the City Code by June 30 of this year to conform with Oregon House Bill 2001. Enacted into law by the 2019 Oregon Legislature, HB 2001 requires that large cities (defined as cities with a population of 25,000 or more) must allow “middle housing” types in areas zoned R-1. Eugene City councilors are scheduled to review and discuss the proposed amendments in a work session this coming Wednesday, March 9, at noon.
 
HB 2001 defines middle housing as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses. The professed goal of the legislation is to encourage a broader set of housing options, while fostering the development of more connected, climate-resilient neighborhoods of greater economic and demographic diversity.
 
Proponents assert existing zoning too often presents barriers to the development of demographically appropriate and desirable living options. Many additionally say missing middle housing can help address the pressing need for affordable housing. With the implementation of its provisions, HB 2001 opens the door to missing middle developments in neighborhoods previously restricted to detached, single-family residences.
 
Under the new law, cities retain the responsibility to regulate the siting and design of middle housing, provided that the regulations do not discourage middle housing development through unreasonable costs or delay. Therein lies the rub. The forces behind Housing-Facts.org—which include neighborhood advocate and firebrand Paul Conte—argue the sweeping code amendments proposed by City of Eugene planners go too far. Specifically, they believe the changes would incentivize demolition of older, relatively inexpensive homes in favor of developments that first and foremost maximize the allowable residential density and profit potential, at odds with the professed goal of increasing access to affordable housing for low-income individuals and families.
 
Housing-Facts.org can cite compelling sources who state, contrary to the aims of HB 2001, that building new (and inevitably, expensive) missing middle types will not minimize housing prices and rents for lower-income households. Instead, studies indicate upzoning unleashes speculative investment in the redevelopment of older properties, resulting in higher prices and fewer inexpensive housing options.
 
HB 2001 didn’t include any direct or indirect provisions requiring developers to create housing that is affordable to households that are “housing-cost burdened.” There is a large deficit in Eugene of affordable housing for very low-income households. Absent subsidies, 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 R-1 land becomes most valuable and attractive to developers who are looking to maximize its profit potential. It would be a shame if the consequence of Eugene’s proposed code amendments is the exact opposite of their envisioned purpose: increased rent for lower-range rentals and increased purchase prices for the lowest-cost homes. If this occurs, the result will be displacement of lower-income households.
 
Affordability is certainly a huge issue. Housing costs in Eugene during just the past five years have increased by 45%. Household incomes have not kept pace, growing only 16% on average over the same period. Clearly, if a city is to remain a sustainable community it must have an inventory of “workforce housing” targeting households ranging between 60% and 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The problem may not be so much a matter of missing middle housing types as it is missing middle economics.  
 
Housing-Facts.org additionally criticizes the absence of provisions within the City planners’ proposed amendments to ensure sufficient infrastructure to support the increased densities, claims the Willamette Greenway protections will be “eviscerated,” and accuses City planners of disseminating misleading missing middle “propaganda.”   
 
I do not believe the City of Eugene planners are deliberately misrepresenting their proposed code amendments, nor do I believe they are in cahoots with development interests, as Housing-Facts.org insinuates. I do believe the planners’ motivations are sincere and well-intentioned; however, it’s a fair question to ask whether aspects of their proposal are ill-considered. That said, I would prefer that Housing-Facts.org refrain from lobbing ad hominem fusillades at City of Eugene planners, the mayor, and those city councilors the group disagrees with; instead, rather than working at cross-purposes, perhaps they can actually work with City staff, set aside prejudicial preconceptions, and rein in the use of off-putting rhetoric. I know there is common ground to build upon.
 
So now that I’ve stepped into the conversation, where do I stand on all of this? The bottom line is HB 2001 is law. The incorporation of middle housing types in R-1 neighborhoods will occur. I think these are good things.
 
Here are my additional thoughts: 

• Ensure incorporation of code standards that mitigate some possible negative outcomes (these standards will mostly be associated with the control of form and density, which can be prescribed within the code). 
• Take a measured approach: Initially satisfy the minimum requirements of HB 2001. Over time, gauge the receptiveness of neighborhoods to the introduction of additional middle housing city-wide, perhaps at higher densities than first allowed; incrementally implement further code amendments. Fine-tune the initial amendments as required.
• Incentivize the development of lower-income and workforce housing as part of medium to high-density mixed-use projects outside of R-1 zones along the current and proposed EmX routes (I’m in full agreement with Housing-Facts.org on this count). Leverage our community’s investment in the BRT system. Introduce financial incentives to promote the construction of projects in general along the EmX alignments, such as density bonuses, tax abatements, reduced parking requirements, and streamlined development approval processes.

Is truly viable missing middle housing simply a fantasy? I for one don’t want to discount the possibility that such a unicorn is a reality. It isn’t necessary to introduce all the missing middle housing types in and about any given R-1 neighborhood. For example, what’s wrong with encouraging the insertion of alleyway ADUs in Eugene’s south and west university districts, targeting occupancy by individual college students? Triplexes, quadplexes, or cottage clusters may variously be more appropriate in other neighborhoods. As a rule of thumb, middle housing should be context sensitive.
 
All neighborhoods change over time. The recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older enclaves unique, but also demands creative, inspired new designs. This may be the reason why acceptance of change 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 underserved needs. 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 building 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.