Cracking the Housing Affordability Nut

It is no secret that the absence of affordable housing is a crisis here in Lane County. According to Better Housing Together, the Eugene area is among the most-constrained housing markets in the nation, second only to Seattle. Eugene also holds the dishonorable distinction of possessing the highest per capita rate of homelessness found anywhere. I’m no housing affordability expert, but I am deeply concerned about how inaccessible the local housing market has become in recent years. As baby boomers, my wife and I enjoy the good fortune of having purchased our home when costs were reasonable (back in the 1980s). That’s hardly the case today.

Cracking the housing affordability nut has proven to be an enormously vexing problem. There are several reasons for this. For one, Euclidean land-use regulations historically downzoned urban areas, effectively banning multifamily housing while promoting suburban sprawl. On another front, North American building codes effectively (if unintentionally) erected barriers to the creation of affordable housing typologies, typically mandating multiple egress routes for large multifamily buildings. Also contributing to the dilemma has been the intransigence of many to change of any kind, especially when such change holds the potential to impact their neighborhoods.

Point-Access Blocks

Re-legalizing single-stair apartment buildings, or "point-access blocks," offers one promising solution. This typology, once common in the U.S. and still prevalent in Europe, could, when paired with zoning reform, enable the cost-effective construction of attractive, light-filled multifamily housing on urban sites currently zoned for single-family homes. Michael Eliason, founder and principal of Larch Lab in Seattle, is perhaps the most ardent evangelist for single-stair apartments, tirelessly working with policymakers, advocacy groups, and jurisdictions to introduce and pass legislation allowing point access blocks. The type is a compelling alternative to the “5-over-1” model so prevalent for multifamily developments in the U.S. today.(1)   

Double-loaded corridor configuration, showing poor unit mix and multiple stairs (source: Larch Lab) 

5-over-1 apartment buildings are typically constructed using light wood framing up to five stories built over a single-story fireproof podium, and feature double-loaded corridors with stairs at each end. The downside is that the type too often results in long, windowless corridors slicing through deep floor plates, with non-corner units having windows on only one side, opposite the entry door, thus favoring studio and one-bedroom layouts.

Connected point access block, showing unit diversity and typical vertical circulation (source: Larch Lab)

In contrast, point-access blocks have shallower floor plates, allowing "floor-through" light on at least two sides of each unit and often featuring shared central courtyards. This not only enhances natural light and airflow but also provides acoustic privacy akin to that of detached single-family homes. Additionally, point-access blocks facilitate community building, as smaller complexes with units arranged around a single stair are more conducive to neighborly interactions.

Single-stair buildings also enable economically feasible multifamily development on small infill lots, whereas the space taken up by two interior stairwells and a corridor render the typical 5-over-1 multifamily buildings infeasible unless the developer aggregates multiple properties. Point-access blocks are inherently more efficient and cost-effective, and hold the potential to comprise a substantial portion of the desired future “missing middle” housing stock.

Seattle revised its building code a few years ago to legalize the point-access block type. The Oregon legislature has followed suit, passing SB 847-4 and subsequently HB 3395 Section 8, which Gov. Tina Kotek signed into law last June. The legislation directs the Building Codes Division to revise the state's building code to allow single-exit apartment buildings by October 1, 2025. The proposed standards include prescribing no more than six stories and four units per floor, limiting distances to the exit stair from any apartment, and requiring application of NFPA 13 sprinkler standards (rather than NFPA 13R). The legislative initiatives apparently passed with overwhelming support, paving the way for new building regulations that may help address the housing affordability crisis while simultaneously promoting compact, sustainable growth.

Lessons from Japan?

Japan possesses an abundance of relatively affordable housing in compact, low-carbon neighborhoods. When conducting research for this blog post, I found this surprising. Apparently, a reason for Japan's success lies in its unusual degree of national control over zoning and building rules, which overrides local housing obstructionism. While this level of centralization would never gain traction here due to the deep-rooted American preference for local regulation, there still may be valuable lessons to be learned from Japan’s experience.

American cities could adapt some Japanese principles without requiring a complete shift to centralized governance of property development. These principles include encouraging rapid housing turnover, promoting compact and efficient land use, and maintaining a regulatory environment that supports diverse housing types.

Firstly, Japan’s regulatory environment welcomes a variety of housing types and sizes. American cities could emulate this flexibility by revising building codes to accommodate different housing typologies, including point-access block designs. As I mentioned above, this is now occurring here in Oregon.

Tokyo (photo by Morio, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Secondly, a significant contributor is Japan’s “disposable house” culture, wherein small homes depreciate completely in about 30 years and are replaced soon thereafter. This rapid turnover, driven by rigorous and frequently updated earthquake-safety laws and a cultural preference for newness, allows Japan to continually replace small homes with larger buildings. American cities could adopt a similar approach by incentivizing the redevelopment of aging housing stock, thus creating opportunities to increase density and improve housing quality, through the implementation of tax incentives, streamlined permitting processes, and subsidies for redevelopment projects.

The notion of a “disposable house” culture does prompt important questions about sustainability. This ingrained practice seems at odds with the ethos of sustainability, which typically emphasizes durability and the conservation of resources. Critics argue that frequent demolition and reconstruction generate significant waste and consume substantial resources; however, this rapid turnover also offers opportunities to incorporate the latest advancements in energy efficiency, materials, and building technologies. Each new construction can integrate greener technologies and higher standards of energy performance, potentially resulting in a housing stock that, on average, is more sustainable than older buildings retrofitted over time. Moreover, continuous redevelopment supports compact urban growth, reducing urban sprawl and its associated environmental impacts.

The “disposable house” model also raises concerns about the potential loss of historic continuity and neighborhood character. Americans cherish the few historic buildings and neighborhoods that exist for their architectural heritage and the sense of identity they provide. The constant replacement of homes, as seen in Japan, could erode this cultural and historical fabric. To strike a balance, American cities should continue to preserve historically and architecturally significant structures while encouraging redevelopment in areas that lack such value. Preservation incentives, such as tax credits for rehabilitating historic buildings, can encourage property owners to maintain and improve these structures.

The NIMBY Challenge

The American mindset is fundamentally predisposed to individualism, localism, property rights, skepticism of government, and a fear of change. Eugene is most decidedly not Tokyo. Local resistance to land use changes—such as the introduction of middle housing types like point-access block housing—is a persistent obstacle, particularly from well-organized neighborhood groups. That resistance has proven effective in impeding even the most suitable new developments, especially in R-1 zoned neighborhoods. The opposition to change often stems from a desire to preserve the perceived tranquility and exclusivity of single-family neighborhoods, coupled with concerns about increased traffic, parking shortages, and strain on local infrastructure.

The recent passage of progressive legislation mandating the introduction of new housing types and compact development will shift the dynamic and potentially help alleviate Eugene’s housing affordability crisis. This shift will take time and the change will be incremental.

Local governments will need to allay the fears of established property owners. Would creating “opt-in” zoning overlays that allow neighborhoods to choose increased density and mixed-use development be a possibility? I don’t know. Such an approach would respect local control while providing a pathway for those willing to embrace change. I believe framing the conversation around the broader community benefits of housing reform will be a key. Addressing the housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach that includes education, community engagement, and strategic policy changes. Advocates can highlight how increased housing supply can stabilize or reduce housing costs, prevent displacement, and create more inclusive, vibrant communities.

*    *    *    *    *    *

Transforming American housing policy is by necessity a multifaceted challenge. The mandate to revise the building code is one step. The U.S. may not embrace centralized control over land use to as great an extent as in Japan, but local governments can still implement significant reforms to encourage housing turnover, promote compact land use, and support diverse housing types. I’m hoping the reforms will result in the accelerating development of affordable, attractive, and sustainable housing here in Eugene, drawing on successful models from Europe and Japan, while working within our unique cultural and regulatory landscape.

(1)   I wrote a contrarian’s blog post back in 2019 extolling what I regarded as the virtues of 5-over-1 construction. Both ArchDaily and Common Edge subsequently picked up the piece. Michael Eliason responded on Twitter (now X), not so much to take exception with what I had written, but rather to note that 5-over-1 developments and the point-block morphology should not be mutually exclusive.