The Worrying Absence of Housing Choice

 

I worry about a lot of things. Unfortunately, there is little I can do about many of them. For example, there is not much I can contribute toward ending the war in Ukraine, not to mention all the other regional conflicts around the world. I cannot control the current inflation in prices for goods and services. I do not have an answer to the opioid crisis, nor do I know how to erase food insecurity. On the other hand, by being vaccinated and committed to following measures to protect myself and others, I am doing my part to limit the spread of COVID-19. As an architect, I can reduce negative environmental impacts by designing with sustainability in mind. I can also walk the talk and personally reduce my carbon footprint by living modestly and lightly on the planet.
 
Because I write on topics related to the built environment, I feel pressed to occasionally weigh in on the greatest challenges architects and planners face today. One of these challenges is the housing affordability crisis here in Lane County and elsewhere. The vast and widening disparity between the median home price in Lane County and the price a median-income household can afford is eye-opening.
 

Of course, the problem of housing affordability is global in scope and hardly unique to our community. According to Reuters, home prices in the U.S. rose 17% in 2021 alone (and as I mentioned previously, housing costs in general have risen by 45% over the past five years in Eugene). Redfin’s market tracking analysts report that Portland recorded a shocking 39% year-over-year increase in average monthly asking rents. Such a trajectory in housing costs is unsustainable. Despite this reality, developers build to turn a profit first rather than to supply housing for people who need it; larger, more expensive, and less affordable homes are the result. Even with the recent and projected interest rate hikes, pundits believe the costs of housing are unlikely to be reigned-in anytime soon.  
 
Part of the problem is rooted in supply and demand:  There simply is a shortage of enough housing of the right types. Not every buyer or renter needs or is looking for a 2,500 SF home with four bedrooms, three baths, and a two-car garage in the suburbs. Paradoxically, the average number of people in American households has declined even as the median size of a new home has doubled since the 1970s. That real estate escalation incentivized purchases of the biggest homes possible only exacerbated this trend. Money naturally flowed and continues to flow toward constructing projects promising the greatest profit potential.
 
Local zoning and land use policies have also contributed to the present dilemma. Euclidean, exclusionary zoning can help preserve historic neighborhoods, protect open space and environmentally sensitive land, manage new development, and maintain property values; however, exclusionary zoning is fundamentally inflexible and organized around an outdated model that prioritizes regulation and segregation of uses over good urban design and performance outcomes. It has perpetuated prioritization of detached, single-family homes to the exclusion of alternative, needed types of housing. Overlay districts and Special Area Zones are not the silver bullet. They can mitigate some shortcomings of Euclidean zoning, but they also add a layer of complexity to regulations most people already have difficulty understanding.
 
These facts are well-known to anyone who has been paying attention. The upshot is a failure to do something about the problem is indefensible and untenable. Doing nothing is not a solution.
 

So, what is the answer? Providing a variety of housing options better suited to our community’s changing demographics is clearly one response. The nuclear family consisting of a married couple and their 2.5 children no longer dominates the composition of households, so neither should the real estate market tailor its offerings to that notional paradigm.
 
To its credit, in 2019 the State of Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, which expands the ability of property owners to build certain traditional housing types—so-called “missing middle” housing—in zones presently restricted to single-family, detached homes. These housing types already exist in most cities, but predominant post-war zoning regulations rendered them illegal for decades in single-detached home residential neighborhoods. HB 2001 requires Oregon cities, including Eugene, to amend their land-use codes by June 30 of this year to allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas.
 
The State Minimum Standards are a set of administrative rules adopted by the State of Oregon that outlines the minimum cities must do to comply with House Bill 2001. The State Model Code meets those minimum requirements. Cities can choose to adopt the Model Code in full or amend their existing codes to satisfy compliance with the Minimum Standards. If a city does not amend its code by June 30, the Model Code will apply to the development of middle housing in that city.
 
The Eugene Planning Commission presented its recommendation for Middle Housing Code Amendments to the city council on January 25, 2022. The Commission’s recommended amendments differ from the State Model Code by providing incentives for smaller housing units and lot size & parking reductions (for example, the proposed code reduces requirements for off-street parking if middle housing is within .25 miles of a frequent transit route). In keeping with the Model Code, the Commission’s recommendation includes standards for tree preservation and solar access. Standards for driveways, parking configuration, and landscaping either match existing R-1 standards or are aligned with the Model Code.
 
In arriving at its recommendation, the Eugene Planning Commission followed eight guiding values and principles:

• Equity and Access to Housing
• Broad Dispersal of Middle Housing
• House Options of All Shapes and Sizes
• Compact, Efficient Housing
• Sense of Belonging
• Opportunities to Build Wealth
• Interconnectedness of Housing Solutions
• Vibrant Neighborhoods

A home is a home regardless of the number of dwelling units. Our neighborhoods are better if they inclusively reflect the full diversity of our community: people of all colors, of all ages and abilities, renters, homeowners, families, childless couples, and singles. The housing needs of such a varied population warrant the introduction of a correspondingly diverse range of housing options.
 
The lack of housing affordability and choice is increasingly a generational dilemma. I fully recognize my privilege as a baby boomer who comfortably occupies a mortgage-free (albeit very humble) home, now worth seven times more than the 1989 price my wife and I paid for it. Most younger persons and families of average means simply cannot afford to buy a house like the one we own. I do worry for their future, and the future of our society if the financial chasm between the haves and have nots continues to widen and the range of housing options remains discouragingly narrow.
  

*    *    *    *    *    *

The next public hearing regarding the proposed Middle Housing Amendment will take place on Monday, April 18 at 7:30 PM. You can watch and provide public testimony at the meeting via Zoom (the Zoom link is on the meeting agenda, found on the City of Eugene website). You can also provide written testimony to MiddleHousingTestimony@eugene-or.gov or by mail to: Planning Division, 99 W. 10^th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401.