Why We Keep Funding Expensive Experiments Instead of What Actually Works
Oregon keeps insisting it can innovate its way out of a housing crisis. Every year the state unveils a new “breakthrough,” usually involving something stylish, sustainable, photogenic, and outrageously expensive. Meanwhile, the only building method that consistently delivers real affordability gets ignored because it’s not shiny enough for the press releases.
That method is manufactured housing.
And here’s the twist. Oregon is actually better positioned than most states to use manufactured homes at scale, because state law already allows them on any residentially zoned property. No special variances. No zoning battles. We already have the legal framework. We just refuse to use it.
Instead, we pour millions into boutique modular prototypes, mass-timber test projects, and pilot programs that produce a handful of units while thousands of families wait.
Let’s look at what burned, what got rebuilt, and where Oregon keeps going off the rails.
What Actually Burned in 2020 — And What Had to Be Rebuilt
When the 2020 Labor Day wildfires ripped across Jackson County, the Almeda Fire alone destroyed more than 2,600 homes. According to OPB, roughly 1,700 of the homes lost statewide were manufactured homes, representing about 42% of total losses.
These weren’t luxury units or high-concept architectural statements. They were the last unsubsidized affordable homes in Oregon. Families living paycheck to paycheck. Seniors on fixed incomes. Workers who keep our communities running.
And when it came time to rebuild, guess what actually returned?
Manufactured homes. Modular homes. Park models. RV-coded units. The kinds of housing the state’s policy class loves to pretend aren’t “real homes,” even though they’re the only homes people can afford without a subsidy.
Talent Mobile Estates is back on its feet with new manufactured homes and a resident-owned model. Lazy Days RV & Mobile Home Park rebuilt with modular units and park models. These projects brought people home far faster than any conceptual mass-timber solution ever could.
But even now, years later, hundreds of families remain displaced. Recovery has been slow everywhere except in the places that used simple, proven, factory-built homes.
Oregon’s Housing Cost Ladder
Here is the cost reality that policymakers and urban design panels like to avoid.
Housing Construction Cost Comparison (Oregon Approximate Ranges)
Construction Type Typical Cost per Sq. Ft.
Why It Costs What It Costs Who It Actually Houses
Manufactured Homes (HUD-coded) About $65–$85 per sq. ft. factory cost, often under $150 per sq. ft. installed One national federal code. Standardized engineering. Industrial production. Lower regulatory burden. Working families, retirees, fire survivors. Truly affordable homeownership.
Modular Homes (state/local code) About $70–$100 per sq. ft. factory cost, often $200–$300+ per sq. ft. installed Must comply with every local building code. Higher engineering and administrative costs. More inspections and certifications. Middle-income buyers or subsidized projects.
Traditional Single-Family (site-built) About $225–$300+ per sq. ft. Labor-intensive. Long build times. Heavy permitting. Rising material costs. Middle and upper-income buyers.
Conventional Multifamily (wood-frame) About $250–$350 per sq. ft.; some Portland projects exceed $600 per sq. ft. Urban land prices. Parking requirements. Fees. Seismic requirements. Mechanical systems. Renters paying high monthly costs.
Mass Timber Multifamily About $350–$400+ per sq. ft. Premium materials, specialized engineering, acoustics, fire assemblies. High-rent buildings or subsidized “affordable” units with huge public funding.
Tiny Homes / Park Models High cost per sq. ft. but low total price Small footprints and RV code. Minimal land use. Temporary housing, transitional units.
The conclusion is straightforward. Manufactured housing is the only construction method with a stable, repeatable cost structure that stays below $150 per sq. ft. delivered. Everything else requires subsidies, tax credits, or heroic optimism.
Why Manufactured Homes Stay Affordable While Costs Keep Rising
Manufactured homes are built under one national building code: HUD 3280. This is the entire reason they remain affordable.
That single federal standard provides:
- standardized engineering
- uniform inspection processes
- reduced administrative overhead
- consistent national production standards
- no local plan review gauntlet
- predictable cost structures
- factory efficiency that scales
Modular & traditional on-site built housing, on the other hand, must satisfy every state and local building requirement, including:
- seismic codes
- wind and snow loads
- site-specific engineering
- energy codes
- sprinkler mandates
- architectural requirements
- local inspections and approvals
- local permitting timelines
Modular homes share a factory with manufactured homes, but not the cost advantages. They pick up all the overhead of site construction while losing some of the speed savings that manufactured homes enjoy.
This is why manufactured homes remain the cheapest path to homeownership in Oregon, while modular remains a mid-priced solution that often requires subsidy support.
The Mass Timber Mirage
Oregon politicians absolutely love mass timber. Press conferences love mass timber. Architectural magazines love mass timber. It photographs beautifully.
But mass timber is not affordable housing.
Mass timber components often cost 20 to 30 percent more than comparable concrete or steel framing. Entire buildings routinely come in 5 to 15 percent more than traditional wood framing. Portland examples have hit $350 to $400 per sq. ft. and higher.
Enter “Mass Casitas,” the state-funded modular mass-timber pilot:
- Six units.
- Roughly $5 million in legislative support for prototype development and a production hub.
- Shipped statewide as demonstration models.
These prototypes may be good research, good for the timber industry, and good for architectural experimentation. But they are not a scalable or affordable solution for Oregon families.
Meanwhile, fire survivors are still living in hotels, RVs, and temporary housing.
Affordable housing money should build affordable housing, not fund prototypes that cost more per sq. ft. than luxury condos.
Oregon Already Has the Legal Framework for a Real Solution — Manufactured Homeownership
Here’s the part Oregon should be proud of: unlike many states, Oregon law already allows manufactured homes on any residential property. That is a massive advantage. Many states restrict them to parks or require special variances. Oregon does not.
What we lack isn’t legality. It’s education, outreach, and political will.
Oregon should be leading the nation in manufactured homeownership, not tiptoeing around it.
To put families back into homes they can actually afford, Oregon should focus on:
- educating cities, lenders, and homeowners about modern manufactured homes
- promoting manufactured homes on privately owned lots
- supporting resident-owned communities where parks already exist
- reducing local biases and planning misconceptions
- prioritizing volume, speed, and cost-effectiveness
- getting government to stop subsidizing the most expensive “affordable” construction models
Manufactured homes are the last unsubsidized path to homeownership for working families. Oregon should elevate them, not treat them like a lesser option.
Oregon Must Stop Performing
and Start Building
Oregon’s housing crisis will not be solved with prototypes, pilots, symposiums, task forces, or design awards. It will not be solved by importing expensive modular concepts. And it certainly will not be solved by mass timber boutique projects that cost as much per square foot as downtown condos.
It will be solved by using the one tool that already works:
Manufactured homes.
They are fast.
They are affordable.
They are regulated by a consistent national code.
They create real homeownership.
And Oregon already allows them everywhere homes are permitted.
If Oregon wants affordability, resilience, and real results, it must stop chasing headline-friendly experiments and start championing the housing that has been quietly delivering affordability for decades.
Manufactured homes are not the alternative.
They are the solution.
It’s time the state treated them that way.
Sources
OPB – Almeda Fire Anniversary & Manufactured Housing Losses
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/29/think-out-loud-almeda-labor-day-fire-2020-anniversary-oregon-wildfire/
KGW – Mass Casitas Modular Mass Timber Project
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/mass-casitas-modular-homes-portland-housing/283-3f6ef33d-c3a5-4a92-a542-9573b85212f9
Salazar Architecture – Mass Casitas Overview
https://www.salazarch.com/blog/mass-casitas-modular-housing
Daily Journal of Commerce – Modular Proposal for Oregon’s Housing Shortage
https://djcoregon.com/news/2023/02/03/a-modular-proposal-to-address-oregons-home-shortage/
Manufactured Housing Institute – National Average Cost Map
https://www.manufacturedhousing.org/resource/mhi-average-cost-map-2023/
Manufactured Housing Overlooked
https://oregonbusiness.com/19790-oregon-s-manufactured-housing-companies-overlooked-by-housing-plan-says-industry-veteran/
Learn more about the many manufactured housing retailers and manufactures in Oregon, by visiting www.omha.com the Oregon Manufactured Housing Association website.
About the author:
Ben Roche is a veteran of the factory-built housing industry with over 30 years of experience, rising from the production line to executive leadership with major producers in Oregon, Idaho, and California. An expert in residential construction and sales across Western US and Canadian markets, Ben is a dedicated advocate for attainable homeownership. He currently serves on the boards of the Oregon Manufactured Housing Association and the Nevada Housing Alliance, working to ensure housing security for American families and retirees. His opinion editorials can be found on Substack at Ben’s Viewpoint.
The opinions contained in the above editoria and on Ben’s Viewpoint are my own, and are not endorsed by OMHA or my employer. My advocacy for housing affordability and home ownership are one of the passions that drive me.
About the Author
