Portland Legalized 'Missing Middle' Housing. Now It's Trying to Make It Easy to Build.
This month, the city passed a number of liberalizing reforms that legalize more types of housing and make already-legal homes more practical to build.

Oregon was the first state in the nation to end single-family-only zoning. Now its largest city is trying to make that reform stick.
This month, the Portland City Council unanimously approved a long list of seemingly technical zoning tweaks that ease the city's rules on construction of "missing middle" housing types like townhomes, fourplexes, and cottage clusters.
Portland legalized many of these housing types citywide in the summer of 2020 when it passed its Residential Infill Project. That program permitted duplexes in all formerly single-family zones and three- and four-unit homes almost everywhere. It also made it easier to add backyard cottages, granny flats, or other accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on single-family lots.
The program got hearty praise at the time as the nation's most ambitious low-density zoning reform. It's spawned an infant industry of developers building smaller, more affordable "missing middle" housing.
Nevertheless, the results thus far have been fairly modest, producing only about 100 additional units since the program went into effect in August 2021.
In response, the City Council is now coming back with a series of even more liberalizing reforms that allow larger buildings and even more types of housing to go in neighborhoods that were once exclusively single-family. The hope is that these reforms will make a wider range of housing options not just legal to build but practical and economical as well.
"I feel like a dam has broken in Oregon housing policy, and it's because we started getting things done," says Michael Andersen, a Portland-based housing researcher at the Sightline Institute. "I'm surprised that things that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago, but awesome, are now on the table."
Portland has been considering changes to single-family neighborhoods since 2015. Things were kicked into overdrive in 2019 when the Oregon Legislature passed a bill requiring larger cities to allow up to four units of housing on single-family zoned properties by 2022.
To meet the state's new requirements, Portland passed the Residential Infill Project in August 2020, which legalized the construction of two-, three-, and four-unit developments on almost all single-family-zoned properties. It also created a system of density bonuses that allows duplexes to be larger than single-family homes and three- and four-unit homes to be larger than duplexes.
The city also went above and beyond state law by allowing the construction of two ADUs—colloquially known as granny flats or in-law suites—on single-family lots and eliminating the requirement that new homes come with off-street parking.
That prompted builder Eric Thompson to shift the business model of his company, Oregon Homeworks, from building larger, single-family homes to taking on these newly legal missing middle projects.
The ability to build more units on a single plot means that the city's high land costs can be spread across a larger number of homes, he says. Rather than selling a single-family home for $1 million-plus, Oregon Homeworks can produce a fourplex with each unit going for half that or even less. That's created a win-win of more revenue for the developer and more affordable units for individual buyers.
"We're able to maintain profitable projects while hitting price points that the vast majority of the buying public can afford," Thompson says.
Oregon Homeworks has constructed about 12 individual homes using the new Residential Infill Project code, including a mix of ADU projects, fourplexes, smaller homes, and remodels.
Numbers from the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability show that from August 2021 to February 2022, permits have been issued for 297 units in the city's low-density zones. Of those, 127 were made possible by the Residential Infill Project, with 91 one of those units being newly legal duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. The rest are ADUs.
That makes Portland's abolition of single-family zoning modestly more successful than other cities that have done the same.
Minneapolis, the first American city to abolish single-family-only zoning, has allowed two- and three-unit homes to be built on residential land citywide since January 2020. Despite implementing its reform over a year before Portland, it's seen the construction of only 104 newly legal duplex and triplex units in single-family zoned areas.
One reason for the more muted effect of Minneapolis' reform is that while the city legalized duplexes and triplexes, it only allowed modest density increases for these new units in some zoning districts and under certain conditions. Portland, in contrast, permitted more liberal density increases to two-, three-, and four-unit homes across more of the city. That slightly more permissive approach is enabling slightly more housing construction.
Portland didn't do everything perfectly. While its Residential Infill Project legalized multiunit housing everywhere and created a system of density bonuses for those projects, it also shrank the maximum allowable size of structures in single-family zones.
So, while you can now build a fourplex, and that fourplex can be larger than a single-family home, both have to be smaller than a single-family home that was allowed in Portland prior to the 2020 reforms.
Portland's 2020 reforms also don't allow four-unit structures to be larger than three-unit structures. That's prevented fourplexes from including three-bedroom, family-sized units, thus limiting their appeal to developers and buyers alike.
The reforms that the City Council passed earlier this month, known as Residential Infill Project 2, attempt to rectify that. The new rules increase the maximum size of four-unit structures enough to allow for modest, family-sized units, says Thompson.
Additionally, the city legalized cottage clusters—smaller detached homes that open up onto a common yard. The state reforms that Oregon passed in 2019 require larger cities to allow these clusters but gave them until June 2022 to implement the change.
Portland has technically allowed these already, says the Sightline Institute's Andersen, but required developers to go through a heavily conditional process that gave both the public and city officials lots of input and the ability to demand changes.
In a more technical change, Portland's Residential Infill Project 2 has also made it easier to divide individual lots into multiple properties. That doesn't necessarily increase the amount of housing that can be built in an area, but it does make it easier for individual homeowners to get in on the home development business.
Andersen says that it's often difficult for individual homeowners to obtain the financing necessary to build an ADU, given how unfamiliar banks are with the product. Homeowners also often don't want to play landlord to whoever occupies the unit.
Giving property owners the ability to divide their lots more easily solves both problems.
"You can refinance your mortgage, subdivide the lot, and then sell a developable parcel in the backyard; that's something the bank knows how to deal with," says Andersen. "You don't have to be a landlord to make that happen, you can just be a neighbor. If you don't want to worry about your tenant's refrigerator after you do this project, you don't have to."
Similarly, Portland's Residential Infill Project 2 has now also tweaked its code to more easily allow townhomes—single-family attached homes that share a wall.
These can likewise be sold off as individual properties, which adds more flexibility for buyers and builders alike. Multiunit structures on the same property, in contrast, either have to be operated as rental housing or joined in a condo association.
The changes in Residential Infill Project 2 go into effect next month. Hopes are high that this will accelerate missing middle housing production. There's some evidence they already are. Thompson says his company already has three soon-to-be legal cottage cluster projects ready for the permitting process, and they expect to complete 70–80 "missing middle" housing units within the next year.
Any new private development is good news. Nevertheless, Portland is expected to add an additional 100,000 households by 2035. Meeting that growing demand will require higher rates of housing production still.
Not all of that could be met with "missing middle" housing.
The city could get a lot more apartment buildings if it got rid of its supply-crushing inclusionary zoning ordinance that mandates larger projects come with below-market-rate units. Getting rid of Metro Portland's urban growth boundary would allow more suburban development on the urban fringe.
The lesson from Portland's single-family-zoning reforms, however, is that the more rules you peel back, the more housing you'll get.
State and city officials seem to understand this as evidenced by the follow-up, liberalizing reforms they adopted this month. They could serve as a model for the rest of the country.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is both an example of states taking away local power - in this case zoning - and of pointy headed intellectuals dreaming up bullshit solutions that constituents will hate. Most Americans still aspire to owning a single family home and the last thing they and the ones who already do want is to see the neighborhoods - new and especially old, which can exist in close proximity to downtown and other valuable land - turned into urban scenes with renters who tend to not care as much about home and the neighborhood. The beneficiaries will be developers and real estate speculators and there is little proof that this will provide "affordable housing".
Trust the experts.
Local power can be tyrannical too, it can sometimes take state or federal power to break it. Jim Crow South is a good example of this happening.
Centralized power is always a bigger risk. Sure, it can be used to do good things and protect people, but just giving the central government more power guarantees that more people will seek to control it to do more things, not all of them good.
It's a lot easier to flee a city with a bad government than to flee the state, and harder still to flee the country.
Respectfully disagree. The United States is so successful in large part because of the centralized power of the federal government protecting individual rights against encroachments at the state and municipal level.
That's the point of townhomes. More affordable options to purchase.
Versus apartments which are rentals.
Joe Friday is correct. I'll go a step farther. It pisses me off the Reason authors seem to keep pushing this crap. Fake libertarian, if you ask me. These insane and ineffective laws are hitting many States. California is one example and the (supposed) "enlightened" State legislators are forcing this crap on cities and neighborhoods, thinking they are being righteous. State planning for land use is never better than local control. The idea that single family zoning is the problem is wrong and foolish. Maybe in some areas it is, but let cities decide. The idea that single family living has racist roots is just incorrect. A segment of people with all skin colors desire to live in single family neighborhoods where owners not renters live.
The idea that this type of housing addressed affordability it foolish. The market decides affordability. If these rules were really meant for the good of communities then the rules would require that the property be owner occupied. California, for one, does not allow owner occupancy to be a local requirement. It also does not permit cities to place an "affordability" requirement on the ADUs (second unit). Now with SB9, it is possible to have four units on properties that were single family. These rules have one goal and only one goal, to dismantle society. This is part of a deconstruction movement. Bad show.
Indeed skunkman, and this effort is the bastard child of some leftists and some libertarians who think this will solve problems and for different reasons.
This is a controversy where I live and the prescription is written by very young city council members - in their 20s - motivated by fighting "racism" in housing and is actually helping dismantle a historic black neighborhood and bringing much opposition from black leaders.
I'm not worried, the Democrats will find a way to bollix this up with layers of bureaucracy and community involvement (read interference).
It's a rough and indirect path to elimination of private property.
Indeed. I'm not right by any means, but this movement is left and elitist. Most of the decision makers either live in an urban setting or live in an area where this crap won't end up in your neighborhood.
It's right there in TFA -- all they've done is add new definitions and new layers of definitions, new zoning, new regulations. The concept of removing regulations is beyond their comprehension. All power to the State, the all-knowing State!
It is astounding that Reason sees taking away people's property rights as a good thing. That they see governmental control as a greater good.
The leftists who run Reason need to understand that the libertarians who still come here for the open forum are well aware that Portland's 'reforms' are leftist decrees designed to force higher population densities and drive out those with a bit too much individualism.
no its anti people who want what they have and not a bunch of low income trouble makers ruining it.
Removing zoning restrictions is taking away property rights? I thought that meant the opposite.
And, as always, you are wrong.
Removing regulation is fine. Replacing one regulation with another regulation that removes local control is another.
Single family zoning is a violation of the rights of someone that wants to build a duplex on their property.
Unless the zoning changes during ownership, then that person who bought a property zoned for single-family houses and wants to build a duplex is a retard.
To the contrary, single family zoning is a condition under which you buy the property. If you violate that condition, you are violating the property rights of your neighbors.
Are you saying the seller put that into the contract? I don't think that's how zoning works.
Yeah former, but I want to build a fat rendering plat next to your duplex and a battery recycling business across the street.
You're as guilty of ideological purity yielding impractical and damaging rules as the leftists are on this issue.
It's a huge stretch to go from my comment opposing single family zoning to claiming I oppose all zoning. I am not opposed to zoning. I have learned about the historical origins of zoning and they were started for exactly the reason you describe. Before zoning, downtown Chicago used to have manufacturing plants next to single family homes and it was a nightmare.
But if the new regulation is more permissive than the one it replaced, why do you care about local control? Local control just means a more nearby and smaller set of oppressors.
referendums and recalls incoming....
Another anti-zoning hard-on from the progressive libertarians at Reason, who can't abide the outcome of private citizens making mutual, contractural agreements that defy Reason's utopian plan.
Government imposed rules about what you may or may not do with your property are mutual, contractual agreements?
How are government zoning restrictions even remotely libertarian? How is restricting what a property owner can do compatible with property rights?
Did you miss the part about mutual agreement?
People buy properties in different zones with deliberate expectations about what they and their neighbors can and cannot do with their property. Like contracts, they have a very reasonable, and libertarian, expectation that government will enforce that agreed zoning.
If you don't want restrictions on property, don't buy in a zoned area.
Did you miss the part about individualism? What aspect of State-mandated property restrictions is remotely related to liberty?
All it comes down to is you wanting to control your neighbors' property to keep your neighborhood as you want it, regardless of how any of your neighbors want their property.
Fuck off, slaver. Buy easements on your neighbors' land by mutual agreement (ie, contract) if you want true mutual agreement. State-imposed "mutual agreement" is nothing of the sort. Contracts are voluntary mutual agreements; there is nothing voluntary about zoning restrictions.
Nothing voluntary? How stupid do you have to be to buy a house or a lot zoned for single-family and not know it?
The private equivalent of zoning is CC&Rs as part of an HOA. And they work pretty much the same way as zoning.
Of course it is: you voluntarily buy into a neighborhood knowing its zoning. But, oh no, you want to change the rules after you have bought your land.
Take your own advice.
Your presumption here is that zones and their function are determined reasonably, absent of political infighting and graft; and that they're stable and appropriate over long periods of time.
I don't think any of these assumptions is reasonable.
Zoning *can* work, but too often it's a political shell game.
True, some assumptions. And yes, original zoning and subsequent changes are almost certainly driven by political leverage. But I have seldom heard of multiple-family zoning switched to single family. More often people want to, and do, the opposite.
Well, a private HOA deciding on CC&Rs is preferable to public zoning boards.
But let's be clear here: a private HOA would be less likely to switch away from single family home zoning to multifamily structure.
I certainly wouldn't call it "mutual agreement" when one side is enforcing it at the point of a gun but reserves for itself the right to change the "zoning" at any time based on the whim of a bunch of bureaucrats who decide that one day your street is for single-family homes and the next day someone can tear down the house next door and shove in a gigantic fourplex on the lot, and there's nothing you can do about it. "Mutual agreement" my foot.
See my comment above. In almost all cases, the change, motivated by some private-public conniving, is from single family to multi-unit. So, the mutual agreement sense perhaps applies best to all the people who buy in with the expectation that the agreement on original zoning will be supported by government.
*Which* comment above? You've made so many, and they talk in circles, contradicting other points you'd already made.
(PS: Getting paid by the word? Or by the post?)
Piss off. (Yay, another 50 cents!)
That was OK when zoned areas were few and far between. Nowadays zoning is just something you're stuck with.
If there were no zoning, then people would impose the same restrictions via an HOA and CC&Rs.
We don't know they would be the same. Otherwise you could say that if there were no price controls, people would arrive at the same prices voluntarily.
I worked as a real estate broker in Salem Oregon before retiring.
I've been to Portland many times and I know that at least a significant part of the reason it has had problems with skyrocketing property prices and increases in people being homeless is due to it's strict zoning regulations.
If anyone has ever been to Houston Texas than they know that quite often you see no buffer zones (schools, parks, rivers or lakes, etc) in between things like factories and neighborhoods. This helps make real estate easier to build, thus more available and less expensive. Portland has had very strict zoning regulations for decades requiring buffer zones between neighborhoods and businesses / factories. On top of that Portland once had zoning regulations that separated single family homes from things like duplexes & apartments, And since Portland already has problems with areas to build because of hills everywhere and a major river going through it, Portland has far fewer building options than a place like Houston.
Portland isn't trying to steal one's dream of owning their own single family home. One can live out in the suburbs next to Portland for that, as with all major cities. Portland simply doesn't want to turn out to be like a Los Angeles or San Francisco.
HeyZeus, there's a reason no one wants to live in Houston unless that's where their job or relatives are while Portland, LA, and SF are destinations for the young and for tourists from around the world.
I wouldn't want to live in Houston either. The traffic is terrible, the air is always smoggy and much of the city is just plain ugly due to issues like run down neighborhoods and it not using buffer zones.
But many thousands have left places like LA and San Francisco to instead move to places like Dallas and Houston because real estate often is half the price, gas is as much as 1/4 cheaper and Texas has much better control of its homelessness. And naturally, housing costs, gas and illegal immigration are some of Americans biggest concerns right now.
Portland is a shithole filled with shitpeople anyway, so who cares?
Move to Houston then where the air is cleaner and the water is as clear as Trump's tax records he once promised to show.
Additionally, the city legalized cottage clusters—smaller detached homes that open up onto a common yard.
It always comes back to the tragedy of the common yard.
Which in Portland is just modern zoning speak for homeless camp.
If Portland wants to make housing more affordable and more available, all they have to do is cancel their urban growth boundary.
Or just wait a few more weeks, and housing will be a lot cheaper on its own.
This plan could be called "How to make middle-class neighborhoods shittier."
Go f*ck yourself, Reason. The butt-slurping for totalitarian leftists isn't even amusing anymore.
But they get to cosplay anarchy (with other peoples' stuff).
Imaging that you are a thirty-something who has bought a single family home in a better neighborhood with good schools. You looked around and this area seems best because it has had a decent return on investment, keeping to single family homes and middle income owners.
Now the rules change and lower income housing is being built across the street. Density increases. People looking for a good place to put their money - housing is usually the biggest investment most will make - are looking elsewhere, further out. You are under water on your mortgage and will probably get far less when you sell than you had hoped for. Also, lower income housing ofter corresponds with lowered expectations in schools.
You are screwed, but look at those who can now afford to be your neighbors! You might consider that many, if not most, slums were once good neighborhoods.
Why does reason hate people who want houses in nice neighborhoods?
Fucking stay in the ugly city, we don't want your filth.
Canceling the single family zoning that my home had reduces it's value and I should be compensated for this taking. Class Action lawsuit anyone?