Franklin Boulevard’s Vertical Growth and the Policy Void Beneath It

A trio of Eugene's recently built luxury student apartment buildings: "The Standard" on the left, "The Rive" in the distance, and "Union on Broadway" on the right (my photo).
 

A Houston, Texas developer (The Dinerstein Companies) proposes an eleven-story apartment tower (dubbed The Aspire) containing 210 units at the site of the now-shuttered 66 Motel on East Broadway/Franklin Boulevard at Hilyard Street.(1) This project joins the surge of mid- and high-rise residential buildings here in Eugene targeting students, particularly near the University of Oregon, Bushnell University, and in the West University neighborhood. The most recent of these projects are proceeding despite signs of market saturation and the growing gap between this specific housing supply and the city’s urgent need for affordable options.
 
This pattern of growth is unsurprising when viewed through the lens of private development economics. Student-focused apartment towers generate reliable profits, especially those leased by the bedroom. As I wrote back in 2021, these luxury student projects command high rents, benefit from strong and predictable occupancy, and pose relatively low risk for developers as long as university enrollment remains steady. The University of Oregon alone draws approximately 23,000 students (undergraduate and graduate) each year, many from out of state and able to afford rents well above the citywide average. These conditions position student housing as an attractive investment vehicle, even as the broader housing market continues to underserve workers, families, and non-student residents.
 
Eugene’s land use policy framework exacerbates the issue. Along East Broadway and Franklin Boulevard, and at other sites near campus, zoning encourages high-density, multi-story construction. The City also designates major corridors like Franklin and parts of 13th Avenue for urban-style development to promote density and transit access. These policies advance sustainability goals, but they do not necessarily prioritize diverse housing types. The Eugene Code generally addresses luxury student towers and mixed-income housing as if they are similar, despite their vastly different constituencies.
 
State-level constraints further limit Eugene’s options. Oregon law prohibits traditional rent control and, more importantly, bars mandatory inclusionary zoning for rental properties—meaning the city cannot require developers to include affordable units in new apartment buildings unless those units are for sale. While voluntary inclusionary housing programs exist, they rely on incentive structures—typically in the form of density bonuses or fee waivers—that developers may simply ignore when the market renders their projects feasible without them.

"The Aspire," which will be built on the site of the old 66 Motel.

 
The result is a housing pipeline heavily weighted toward student-oriented rentals, with little regard for affordability or long-term community needs. These buildings often feature private bedrooms and bathrooms, rooftop decks, gyms, and leasing models geared toward high turnover and premium rent. While they absorb some of the student population, they do little to alleviate the broader housing shortage and can worsen it by driving up land values, displacing long-term renters, and consuming development capacity that could otherwise foster more inclusive housing.
 
Other university cities have taken stronger action to correct this imbalance. In Boulder, Colorado, the city imposes linkage fees on new residential development, directing those funds toward affordable housing. Berkeley, California, enforces a well-established inclusionary zoning program requiring a percentage of units in new buildings to be priced below market. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, requires that 15 percent of housing in most new developments be affordable, and enforces this requirement with regular audits. Though these measures have not solved their housing crises outright, they reflect a recognition that the market alone will not deliver the diversity of housing necessary to support equitable communities.
 
Eugene could pursue several similar measures within its current legal constraints. The city can strengthen and expand its use of voluntary inclusionary housing tools by offering more meaningful incentives to developers who include below-market-rate units. It could impose higher construction excise taxes and direct those additional funds toward the acquisition of land for affordable housing. It can support nonprofit housing developers with access to publicly owned land and expedited permitting processes. Importantly, Eugene could work more closely with the University of Oregon to address the demand side of the equation—by encouraging the university to invest more directly in student housing, either through new on-campus residence halls or by partnering with mission-driven housing providers to build mixed-income housing specifically for students with modest financial resources.
 
Protecting neighborhoods most vulnerable to displacement is also crucial. The city can adopt anti-demolition measures for older (yet sound) naturally affordable housing stock; create zoning overlays that prioritize family-sized and affordable units; and direct tax increment financing from urban renewal districts into housing stabilization funds. Furthermore, Eugene could expand its engagement with community land trusts and housing cooperatives, which offer long-term affordability through models that remove land from speculative markets.

The Aspire. 

The continued march of luxury student towers along Franklin Boulevard and beyond is not inevitable. It reflects a policy environment that allows the logic of private finance to dominate the planning and development process. This is why I believe the City must adopt a more deliberate and proactive stance toward addressing its housing shortage in a way that serves the full breadth of its population. That means acknowledging the limits of current zoning policy, reevaluating the assumptions behind development incentives, and using every available tool—financial, regulatory, and collaborative—to rebalance the housing ecosystem.
 
The cranes may keep rising, but unless Eugene redirects the framework shaping what gets built, the result will be a city increasingly defined by what is easiest to finance, not by what is most urgently needed. 

(1)    The Aspire project was subject to an Adjustment Review, which the City of Eugene Planning Director approved. You can find documents associated with the Adjustment Review application here. The proposed building totals approximately 420,000 square feet, while the site is 71,170 square feet in area (the floor area ratio is thus 5.9:1). The architect for the project is TCA Architects of Los Angeles. John Hyland Construction will be the general contractor. Hyland built several of the recent student housing towers along East Broadway and Franklin Boulevard, including The Hub, The Rive, 959 Franklin, and Union on Broadway.