Portland is experiencing the same challenge as many desired urban markets - lack of housing supply that is affordable. For years development in Portland has been slow, and now leaders are addressing the issue, which needs a multitude of approaches--mirroring the approach and conversation that will take place at the HIVE conference, November 28-29.
As urban centers become ever more desirable places to live, the supply of affordable housing is decreasing exponentially. Portland, Oregon, is one of the many American cities struggling with the issue; the Portland Housing Bureau reports that annual rent increases are the highest in the country, with full-time minimum-wage workers needing to spend almost 80% of their income for average rent.
To combat this growing problem, Portland enacted an Inclusionary Housing policy in 2016 mandating that any residential building with more than 20 units provide 10-20% of units at below-market rates. The policy deterred developers, however, and scant few buildings have been proposed since that time. On May 9, in the Portland offices of TVA Architects, Metropolis’s director of design innovation Susan S. Szenasy led a lively discussion on healthy future solutions, as well as developer and market-led resistance, to affordable housing.
The solutions were framed within the changing definition of a city. As automobiles are slowly phased out of everyday life—with autonomous cars, car shares, and public transit aspiring to become the norm—urban planning will shift to fit. Nico Larco, an architecture professor at the University of Oregon and the Co-Founder of the Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI), noted that location might not matter so much anymore, given the changing nature of transportation. Instead, “what’s really going to matter is what’s the synergy, what’s the buzz, why do people want to be there.”
Yet even while people want to live in more diverse, equitable neighborhoods with active streetscapes, the biggest roadblock continues to be capital markets. “There’s a huge amount of inherent risk and a tremendous amount of illiquidity in real estate,” says developer Thomas Cody, principal at Project^ ecological development. “So it’s very slow to change. We’re trying to be disruptive by showing people that by thinking differently about real estate, we can be more profitable but also more resilient.” The panelists also discussed how risk-taking and collaboration between disciplines—real estate, architecture, government—were factors in this more innovative approach.
Yet even while people want to live in more diverse, equitable neighborhoods with active streetscapes, the biggest roadblock continues to be capital markets. “There’s a huge amount of inherent risk and a tremendous amount of illiquidity in real estate,” says developer Thomas Cody, principal at Project^ ecological development. “So it’s very slow to change. We’re trying to be disruptive by showing people that by thinking differently about real estate, we can be more profitable but also more resilient.” The panelists also discussed how risk-taking and collaboration between disciplines—real estate, architecture, government—were factors in this more innovative approach.
