The Ritz-Carlton reset worked: after a year of no activity, 36 sales closed in the first five months of 2026 at 100% of their post-reset list price. With 85 units still unsold, the luxury tower is transitioning from an initial surge of pent-up demand to more typical, organic absorption conditions in the downtown Portland luxury condo market.
The Ritz-Carlton, Portland hotel and Ritz-Carlton Residences Photo: Via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0)
The Ritz‑Carlton Residences, Portland entered 2026 under a cloud of uncertainty. Between November 9, 2023 and February 28, 2025, only 11 units had sold—as detailed in a prior Portland Appraisal Blog analysis—and the project had become the subject of sustained media attention focused on stalled absorption, unresolved structural questions, and the perception that the tower was struggling to gain traction in a challenging downtown environment. The situation escalated when the property underwent a transfer in lieu of foreclosure, adding another layer of complexity to an already difficult narrative.
By early 2026, the building carried 121 unsold units, and the market for new‑construction luxury condominiums in the central city appeared effectively frozen. With no closings for roughly a year, the project was beginning to resemble a potential failure: a high‑profile development facing a large block of inventory, limited buyer confidence, and widespread uncertainty about how—or whether—the remaining units could be absorbed.
This was the backdrop against which Christie’s International Real Estate assumed responsibility for the remaining inventory. The central question was whether a disciplined strategy could revive a project that had stalled so completely.
Turnaround Challenge
Christie’s International Real Estate assumed responsibility for the remaining inventory at The Ritz‑Carlton Residences, Portland at a moment when the project faced significant headwinds. Although the brokerage network originated as a subsidiary of the Christie’s auction house, it is now independently owned and operates under a long‑term, exclusive brand‑licensing partnership with the auction house. According to the organization’s official website, the network spans more than 50 countries, includes 518 brokerage offices, and comprises over 11,000 agents.
Its Portland affiliate, Christie’s International Real Estate Evergreen – Portland, is based in the Pearl District and has been tasked with directing the turnaround efforts. Per their website, the local team was “founded by longtime top‑producing brokers…with deep roots in Oregon and Southwest Washington.” This combination of local experience and access to a global luxury network positioned the firm to manage a complex, high‑end inventory release in a challenging market environment.
The task was no minor undertaking. Their job was to reintroduce a project that had gone quiet, rebuild buyer confidence, and manage the release of a large block of inventory without destabilizing pricing or overwhelming the market.
The data from the first half of 2026 now provides a clear picture of how that effort unfolded and why the results amount to a well‑managed turnaround.
Ritz-Carlton Performance Snapshot
Metric
Pre-Reset (2023-2025)
Post Reset (2026 – Present)
Units Sold
11
36
Cancelled Listings
103
2
Total $ Value
$16,504,000
$42,362,500
Average Sales Price
$1,500,364
$1,176,736
Median Sales Price
$1,100,000
$1,140,000
Average PPSF
$1,052.73
$732.01
Median PPSF
$944.20
$693.09
Average Total SF
1,363
1,577
Average SP/OLP
84.48%
100.00%
Average CDOM
24.55
10.25
Data: RMLS | Portland Appraisal Blog
The metrics reveal a clear shift in market behavior at The Ritz‑Carlton Residences following the ownership transition and pricing reset. From 2023 through the end of 2025, the project recorded 11 closed sales against 103 cancelled listings, a pattern consistent with pricing misalignment and limited buyer engagement. In contrast, from January through May 31, 2026, the building produced 36 closings with only two cancellations, indicating a market that re‑engaged once pricing and release strategy were realigned.
This shift is visible across all major indicators. Average sale price declined from $1,500,364 to $1,176,736, while median sale price remained relatively stable at approximately $1.1–$1.14 million. The more pronounced change appears in price per square foot: average PPSF fell from $1,052.73 to $732.01 (median PPSF from $944.20 to $693.09), reflecting the magnitude of the pricing adjustment required to achieve consistent absorption. Post‑reset transactions also show a much tighter clustering between average and median values, suggesting a more uniform product mix and a consistent buyer pool.
Other measures point to improved market efficiency. Sales price to original list price (SP/OLP) performance increased dramatically to 100%, and cumulative days on market (CDOM) compressed from 24.55 days to 10.25 days. (This uniform 100% SP/OLP outcome across all 36 sales is noteworthy; it suggests the brokerage team made a deliberate decision to set disciplined, market‑supported list prices from the outset and hold firm rather than engage in incremental negotiations or further reductions.) Units sold in 2026 also trend noticeably larger on average (1,577 SF vs. 1,363 SF pre‑reset). This shift in unit mix appears to have helped stabilize median sale prices near $1.14 million despite the substantial reduction in PPSF—effectively offering buyers more space while managing the optics of the pricing reset.
From an appraisal perspective, the post‑reset period provides a more reliable body of closed sales for market‑supported valuation. With nearly $59 million in closed condominium sales to date, the dataset is now large enough to support meaningful paired‑sales analysis, PPSF benchmarking, and broader comparison within the downtown Portland luxury segment. The reduction in cancelled listings, the convergence of average and median pricing, and the consistent SP/OLP ratios all indicate improved conformity and sharpens analytical reliability relative to the pre‑reset period.
This snapshot establishes the foundation for the sections that follow, including the relationship between pricing and square footage, the building’s unusually consistent SP/OLP discipline, and the timing patterns visible in listing activity and days on market.
Market Behavior Visuals
The following visuals illustrate how the pricing reset, release strategy, and absorption patterns played out in real time. Each chart highlights a different dimension of the repositioning—from the relationship between sales price and unit size, to the building’s pricing discipline, to the cadence of listings and the timing of contract activity. Taken together, these visuals provide a clearer picture of how the project moved from stalled activity to consistent, market‑supported absorption.
Sales Price vs. Total Square Footage
The scatter plot above highlights one of the clearest contrasts between the pre‑reset and post‑reset market. The original 11 sales (shown in red with a yellow highlight, and sized by total square footage) follow a notably tight linear relationship between unit size and sales price. This indicates that the initial pricing model was internally consistent and size‑driven, but ultimately too high to close more than 11 units over roughly two years. In other words, the pricing logic made sense on paper, but the broader market did not accept the level.
The 2026 sales (shown in gray, also sized by total SF) tell a different story. Rather than forming a straight line, they create a broader vertical band—primarily between 1,400 and 1,800 square feet—with similar‑sized units selling at different prices. This dispersion reflects buyers pricing in floor level, view orientation, and other qualitative attributes. That pattern is exactly what we expect in a more typical, functioning condominium market. When qualitative differences don’t influence price, it usually signals that something is suppressing normal market behavior—precisely the condition present during the pre‑reset period.
Two larger 2026 sales—approximately $2.6M and $2.8M—sit above the main cluster yet remain aligned with the overall trendline. Their presence demonstrates that the premium segment remained viable after the reset; the repositioning did not cripple the upper tier, it simply recalibrated the broader pricing structure to levels the market would reliably absorb.
Overall, the visual shows a clear transition:
Pre‑reset: linear, size‑driven pricing with low absorption
Post‑reset: market‑derived pricing with healthy variation and strong absorption
This shift sets the stage for the next section on pricing discipline, where we examine how the brokerage held firm on list prices across all 36 post‑reset sales.
Pricing Discipline — 36/36 at 100% SP/OLP
The SP/OLP visuals highlight one of the clearest outcomes of the repositioning: all 36 post‑reset sales closed at 100% of the original list price. This consistency reflects both strong market acceptance and the brokerage team’s research‑driven pricing strategy. The team clearly entered the reset with a well‑supported understanding of where the market would perform, allowing them to hold firm on pricing from the outset. Whether later phases will require adjustments is unknown, but the first 36 sales demonstrate a deliberate intent to maintain pricing discipline during the initial release.
The SP/OLP ratio chart shows the contrast with the pre‑reset period. Earlier transactions cluster in the 70%–90% range, reflecting the degree of price capitulation required to secure the first 11 closings. This wasn’t about concessions in the technical sense—both periods were heavily cash‑driven (9 of 11 pre‑reset sales and 27 of 36 post‑reset sales). Instead, the gap simply reflects how far the original list prices exceeded market‑supported levels.
The dollar‑difference chart reinforces this point. Several pre‑reset units closed $300,000 to $800,000 below their original list prices, underscoring the magnitude of the pricing gap. Post‑reset, this gap disappears entirely. The absence of downward movement across all 36 sales indicates a stable, market‑derived pricing structure rather than one reliant on reductions or incentives.
Together, these visuals show how the reset replaced a high‑price, low‑absorption model with a calibrated pricing framework that the market consistently supported. This pricing stability provides essential context for the next section, where the DOM and List‑Date scatter reveals how absorption patterns evolved under the new strategy.
Simple Graph, Surprisingly Complex Story (DOM vs. List Date)
The DOM vs. List Date scatter is simple in what it displays—each dot shows when a unit was listed, how long it remained on the market, and whether it ultimately closed or is still active (gray = closed, orange = active/pending). Dot size reflects total square footage. But when paired with the weekly release table, the graph reveals the entire structure of the post‑reset absorption cycle.
Week Listed
Total Listings
Eventual Sales
Still Active or Pending
11/17/2025
1
0
1
2/16/2026
14
6
8
2/23/2026
8
7
1
3/2/2026
2
2
0
3/9/2026
15
12
3
3/16/2026
2
2
0
3/23/2026
4
4
0
4/6/2026
1
1
0
4/13/2026
2
1
1
4/20/2026
1
0
1
5/18/2026
2
1
1
5/25/2026
2
0
2
Totals
54
36
18
Data: RMLS | Portland Appraisal Blog
1. The scatter shows listing timing, not closing timing
Each point marks the day a unit entered the market and how long it remained exposed. It does not show when the sale closed. This distinction matters because the brokerage’s release cadence—not the closing dates—is what shapes the pattern.
2. The release table shows how supply entered the market
The brokerage released units in deliberate batches:
14 units the week of 2/16
8 units the week of 2/23
2 units the week of 3/2
15 units the week of 3/9
After more than a year with no closings, the market had accumulated substantial pent‑up demand. The brokerage met that demand with a controlled, phased release rather than flooding the market.
3. DOM for closed sales was remarkably range‑bound
This is one of the most important reads from the scatter.
The gray dots—the units that did sell—cluster within a tight, normal DOM range for a luxury product at this price point. Their DOM reflects typical exposure time, not distress or stagnation.
The high‑DOM outliers are almost entirely unsuccessful listings (orange dots). Their height on the chart represents the number of days from their list date through the date of analysis (June 1, 2026). These are the units that remain active or pending, not the ones that closed.
This distinction matters:
Successful listings: normal, range‑bound DOM
Unsuccessful listings: high DOM because they are still on the market
This pattern reinforces that the early waves did sell efficiently and that the scatter’s tallest points are simply the unsold remainder of each release cycle.
4. After 3/28, absorption slows for newly released units—but closings continue overall
Only three of the units released after 3/28 have closed so far. This marks the transition from the pent‑up demand phase to the organic‑demand phase, where absorption naturally slows as the backlog of waiting buyers is satisfied.
However, this does not mean the project stopped closing units. Actual closings—regardless of list date—continued into May, with seven closings in May.
This distinction is important:
Release‑cohort absorption slowed (only 3 of the later‑listed units have closed).
Overall project absorption remained active, just thinner and more typical of a luxury market returning to normal conditions.
The scatter shows this shift: later list dates contain fewer gray dots (closings) and more orange dots (active/pending).
5. No new releases between 4/22 and 5/19
This pause appears in the scatter as a gap in new list dates. The brokerage held back because each release cycle left behind a small number of active units. As absorption slowed, adding more supply would have risked creating drag.
6. Residual inventory is now accumulating — the sensitive phase
There are now 17 active units (plus one pending likely to close). With only 47 of 132 units sold to date, the project still has 85 units remaining.
The scatter shows this clearly:
Each release cycle leaves a few units unsold.
Those unsold units accumulate as the market shifts into organic demand.
DOM for active units is rising—not because pricing is off, but because the buyer pool is no longer front‑loaded with people who have been waiting a year.
This is the expected pattern for a luxury high‑rise after a reset: fast absorption early, slower absorption later, and increasing sensitivity to release timing. With 17 active units (the part of 85 unsold that is currently exposed to the market), the project is entering a more sensitive phase where release timing and inventory management will matter more than during the initial surge.
Concluding Thoughts — A Reset That Worked, and the Phase That Comes Next
The Ritz-Carlton, Portland hotel and Ritz-Carlton Residences Photo: Via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0)
The post‑reset performance of the Ritz‑Carlton Residences shows a project that successfully re‑entered the market with a pricing structure the market was willing to absorb. The Sales Price vs. Total SF analysis demonstrated that the reset restored a functioning market where qualitative differences once again influenced price. The SP/OLP discipline confirmed that the brokerage team priced the units with precision, holding firm at 100% SP/OLP across all 36 post‑reset sales—an outcome that reflects both strong market acceptance and a research‑driven pricing strategy.
The DOM vs. List Date scatter then revealed how absorption actually unfolded. The initial release cadence met more than a year’s worth of pent‑up demand, clearing nearly 70% of early listings and producing normal, range‑bound DOM for the units that closed. As the market transitioned into organic demand, absorption naturally slowed, and residual inventory began to accumulate. With 17 active units and 85 still unsold, the project now enters a more sensitive phase where release timing, inventory management, and continued pricing discipline will matter more than during the initial surge.
Taken together, these visuals tell a coherent story:
The reset corrected the pricing structure.
The brokerage executed a disciplined, data‑supported launch.
The market responded strongly at first, then settled into a more typical luxury‑market rhythm.
The project is no longer in the “reset” phase; it is now in the management phase, where the remaining 85 units will require careful pacing to maintain the stability achieved so far. The early results show that the repositioning worked. The next chapter will depend on how effectively the team navigates the slower, more organic portion of the absorption curve.
Christie’s International Real Estate | Ownership: The Real Deal
Christie’s International Real Estate | Portland Office: Official Website
The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Portland — Market Resistance and the Principle of Conformity in Downtown Condominiums (2023–2025): Portland Appraisal Blog
Thanks for reading—I hope you found a useful insight or an unexpected nugget along the way. If you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing for future updates.
CODA
Are you an agent in Portland who wonders why appraisers always do “x”?
A homeowner with questions about appraiser methodology?
If so, feel free to reach out—I enjoy connecting with market participants across Portland and the surrounding counties, and am always happy to help where I can.
And if you’re in need of appraisal services in Portland or anywhere in the Portland Region, we’d be glad to assist.
With the 30‑year fixed rising to a 2026 high of 6.53% on May 28, structural affordability in the Portland region declined across every PABAI metric. This rate peak directly raised monthly payments and required incomes, squeezing 141 homes out of reach within the Q1 detached housing dataset for median-income households.
What Happened This Week
Mortgage rates climbed again this week to 6.53%, marking the third straight weekly increase. The broader 2026 pattern is now clear: rates bottomed on March 5th, surged sharply through early April, cooled briefly, and then reversed course on April 23rd. With this week’s move, we are now sitting at the highest 30‑year fixed rate of the year, and the spring cooldown is definitively over.
Affordability has deteriorated in step with these increases. Monthly payments are now higher than at any point in 2026, and the upward pressure on rates has pushed qualifying costs well above their early‑March lows. As the charts below show, today’s rate sits at the top of the year‑to‑date range, and the PABAI reflects a worsening affordability trend for the Portland Region as we move deeper into the spring market.
Mortgage Rate Context
Long‑Run View (Since 2000)
The long‑run chart shows how today’s rate fits into a 25‑year history of mortgage cycles. The early 2000s sat in the 6–8% range, the post‑Great Recession era brought a decade of unusually low rates, and the pandemic period pushed borrowing costs to historic lows. Years after leaving that ultra‑low‑rate environment, the market continues to adjust to more difficult financing constraints, and today’s 6.53% reflects that ongoing shift.
Medium‑Run View (Since COVID)
The COVID‑era chart highlights the dramatic rate compression of 2020–2021, the rapid surge of 2022, and the choppy plateau that has defined the past two years. Rates have been oscillating between roughly 6% and 7% since mid‑2023, and the recent climb places today’s rate near the upper end of that band. Volatility has cooled compared to 2022, but the medium‑run trend remains one of elevated and persistent borrowing costs.
Short‑Run View (2026 YTD)
The year‑to‑date chart shows the full shape of the 2026 cycle: a clear bottom on March 5th, a sharp rise into early April, a brief cooldown, and a reversal beginning April 23rd. With this week’s increase, the 30‑year fixed now sits at its highest level of the year, and the upward pressure has pushed affordability to its weakest point of 2026. This short‑run pattern is the most relevant for buyers today, as it directly shapes monthly payments and qualifying power.
Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index (PABAI)
What PABAI Measures
The Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index (PABAI) measures how the average home close price compares to what a median‑income household can qualify for under standard lending assumptions (HUD Portland‑Vancouver‑Hillsboro MSA median income, 20% down, and a 28% DTI for principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and HOA dues).
Unlike national affordability indices, PABAI is built from actual RMLS transactions—all 3,349 detached sales for the Portland Region in Q1 2026—which allows for far more precise, locally grounded insights into Portland‑area affordability than any national model can provide.
A PABAI of 100 means the market is exactly affordable at that income level (the Q1 2026 HUD median MSA income was $124,100 for a family of four). Values above 100 indicate excess qualifying capacity (more affordable), while values below 100 indicate a shortfall (strained affordability). Full methodology and the interpretation scale are available on the PABAI explainer page.
PABAI Range
Interpretation
120+
Strongly Affordable
100–119
Moderately Affordable
80–99
Strained
Below 80
Severely Constrained
Q1 2026: Actual vs. Fixed‑Rate Affordability
The Q1 chart compares two versions of PABAI: one using actual weekly mortgage rates, and one using the current rate (6.53%) as a constant. Because the constant‑rate line uses the highest rate of the year, it naturally sits below the actual‑rate line for most of the quarter. That part isn’t the story.
The key insight is the size of the gap between the two lines. Early in the quarter, actual rates were meaningfully lower than the current rate (YTD high), giving buyers more qualifying power than a flat‑rate environment would suggest. But as rates climbed through March and into April, the two lines began to converge—a visual confirmation of how persistent rate increases have eroded affordability heading into spring.
Structural Unaffordability and the Seasonal Pattern
Detached homes in the Portland region remain structurally unaffordable to a household earning the HUD median MSA income. PABAI has been below 100 for years, and Q1 2026 continues that pattern. What the chart makes clear is that winter remains the best window for buyers on tight qualifying budgets: affordability improves when rates soften and seasonal pricing cools. As spring approaches, both rates and prices firm up, and affordability reliably compresses.
With the 30‑year fixed now at its highest level of 2026, the convergence of the two PABAI lines at the end of the quarter reflects the same reality: rising rates have pushed qualifying costs to their weakest point of the year.
Affordability Snapshot (This Week)
Q1 2026 Affordability Recomputed at Today’s Rate
The table below shows how Q1 2026 affordability metrics change when all 3,349 detached sales are recalculated at this week’s 6.53% rate. This is the clearest way to see how rising rates reshape qualifying power, housing burden, and the share of homes accessible to a median‑income household.
Taken together, these metrics show how quickly affordability erodes when rates rise into the mid‑6% range. The drop in PABAI from 80.47 to 77.77 may look modest at first glance, but it represents a meaningful tightening of qualifying power across the entire detached market. Required income rises to nearly $160,000, widening the gap between what a median‑income household earns and what the market demands. That shortfall now approaches 29%, a reminder that the typical Portland household is operating well outside traditional affordability thresholds.
The payment side tells the same story. Recomputing Q1 sales at today’s rate pushes the average monthly mortgage obligation up by roughly $144, which may seem incremental on a monthly basis but compounds sharply over a 30‑year horizon. More importantly, the higher rate pushes the average front‑end debt-to-income ratio from 40.36% to 41.75%, a level that would be considered stretched even in more forgiving underwriting environments. These shifts are not abstract; they directly shape who can buy, what they can buy, and how competitive they can be.
The Buyer‑Side Impact
The most visible consequence of these changes is the shrinking pool of homes accessible to a median‑income household. Under actual Q1 2026 rates, 738 detached homes were affordable; at today’s rate, that number falls to 597. In percentage terms, the share of the market within reach drops from 22.0% to 17.8%—a loss of more than four percentage points in a single recalculation. This is the practical expression of rising rates: fewer viable options, tighter qualifying margins, and a market that becomes increasingly selective about who can participate.
For buyers, the experience varies by circumstance but the direction is the same. Households with limited flexibility feel the tightening most acutely, as even small rate movements can eliminate entire segments of the market. Move‑up buyers face a widening payment gap between their current home and the next one, making the trade‑up calculus more difficult unless equity is substantial. Cash buyers, by contrast, gain relative leverage as financed demand thins, though that advantage is uneven across price tiers.
Across all buyer types, the message is consistent: rising rates are reshaping the market in real time, and the affordability landscape at a 6.53% mortgage rate is meaningfully different from the one buyers faced just a few months ago.
The Seller‑Side Impact
Rising rates don’t just reshape the buyer experience—they influence seller outcomes as well. In the 2025 detached market, cumulative days on market (CDOM) increased 11.09%, and the current rate environment suggests that upward pressure on market times may persist. As affordability tightens and the pool of qualified buyers shrinks, homes that would have moved quickly in a lower‑rate environment may begin to sit longer, particularly in segments where pricing is already stretched. This doesn’t imply an abrupt market shutdown, but it does mean sellers need to price with greater precision and expect a more selective buyer pool as 2026 progresses.
Closing Thoughts
The story of this week is straightforward: mortgage rates have climbed to their highest level of 2026, and the effects are visible across every affordability metric. The PABAI continues to signal structural strain for median‑income households, and the recalculated Q1 data shows how even modest rate movements reshape qualifying power, monthly payments, and the share of homes within reach.
For buyers, the takeaway is that financing conditions remain tight and are tightening further as we move deeper into the spring market. Winter continues to offer the best affordability window, but the current rate environment means households on the margin will feel pressure sooner and more sharply than in prior years.
For sellers, the implications are more subtle but no less real. Last year’s detached market saw CDOM rise more than 11%, and the present rate backdrop suggests that trend may persist. A smaller pool of qualified buyers and higher monthly payments can translate into longer market times, especially for homes priced aggressively or positioned in segments where affordability is already stretched. Pricing discipline and realistic expectations matter more in this environment than they did during the ultra‑low‑rate era.
As always, the Portland market adapts—sometimes quickly, sometimes reluctantly—but the direction of travel is clear. Higher rates are reshaping both sides of the transaction, and the spring of 2026 is operating under the most constrained financing conditions we’ve seen this year.
Sources & Further Reading
All data presented in this quarterly update is sourced directly from RMLS and has been subjected to my rigorous cleaning and validation process to ensure reliability for detached single-family residential analysis in the six-county Portland Region. The trends, comparisons, and commentary are the result of original appraisal expertise and independent analysis—not aggregated from secondary sources or news summaries.
Thanks for reading—I hope you found a useful insight or an unexpected nugget along the way. If you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing for future updates.
Are you an agent in Portland who wonders why appraisers always do “x”?
A homeowner with questions about appraiser methodology?
If so, feel free to reach out—I enjoy connecting with market participants across Portland and the surrounding counties, and am always happy to help where I can.
And if you’re in need of appraisal services in Portland or anywhere in the Portland Region, we’d be glad to assist.
Portland’s Home‑Sharing Pilot pays homeowners $200/week to rent spare bedrooms, but appraisers see a valuation blind spot: the income is real to owners yet largely invisible to lenders, GSEs, FHA, and most VA underwriting.
A classic pre-1940 home in the Portland region—the type of property often structurally suited for multi-room sharing arrangements. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik, Portland Appraisal Blog
Portland’s Quiet Experiment: Turning Spare Rooms into Distributed SROs
Portland is running a quiet housing experiment in 2026, and it requires no new construction, no zoning fights, and no multimillion‑dollar bond measures. The city is simply trying to activate something already sitting inside thousands of local homes: the spare bedrooms.
Launched in February 2026, the Portland Home‑Sharing Pilot Program offers owner‑occupants a one‑time grant—$1,000 for the first room and $500 for each additional room—to make at least one bedroom available for rent at a capped rate of $200 per week, utilities included. Homeowners must live on site, commit to keeping the room(s) available for 12 months, and work through approved providers (currently PadSplit and Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon). Rooms must meet basic habitability standards under ORS 90.320 and be registered under Portland’s Rental Registration Program. Because the tenant must live inside the same dwelling unit as the homeowner, renters share the home’s kitchen and bathroom facilities in virtually all cases.
This is not short‑term rental housing like Airbnb, nor is it a traditional apartment or ADU. It is something different: an informal, distributed form of single‑room occupancy (SRO) housing.
Oregon’s 2023 statewide SRO legalization (ORS 197A.430) laid the legal groundwork. The pilot operationalizes the same concept—private rooms with shared facilities—without requiring new buildings. A purpose‑built SRO like the Alder House in the Pearl District features small private rooms, shared kitchens and baths, and centralized management. The pilot recreates that basic form, but scatters it across hundreds of existing single‑family homes.
The Sam Galbreath Alder House in Portland’s Pearl District—a purpose-built single-room occupancy (SRO) building featuring centralized management and shared facilities. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik, Portland Appraisal Blog
Portland’s housing stock is unusually well‑suited for this model. Many early‑1900s homes contain four, five, or six bedrooms spread across three levels, often with basements that provide natural separation between owner and boarder. Few West Coast cities of similar size have this volume of large, compartmentalized older homes, and that architectural quirk gives the pilot room to function.
Portland is joining a growing list of cities experimenting with room‑rental models as a tool for housing availability. The logic is pragmatic: constructing new deeply affordable units is slow and expensive, while spare bedrooms represent low‑cost “latent capacity.” By requiring owner occupancy, rent caps, and habitability checks, the city hopes to expand housing options without fostering unsafe or absentee‑landlord situations.
It is a creative policy experiment. Yet turning spare rooms into housing supply is not the same as convincing homeowners to participate. The economics, risks, and valuation implications are substantial—and that is where the story becomes especially relevant for appraisers.
Why Homeowners Might Hesitate: Practical, Financial, and Interpersonal Friction
If unlocking spare bedrooms were simply a matter of latent capacity, participation would be straightforward. In reality, those bedrooms sit inside someone’s primary residence. Converting them into rental space introduces proximity, financial, and lifestyle trade‑offs that most homeowners have never faced.
Unlike renting a self‑contained ADU or a fully independent basement apartment, this arrangement means sharing circulation paths, noise, kitchen, and bathroom facilities with a stranger. Even in large early‑1900s Portland homes with three levels and partial separation, daily life overlaps—cooking smells, laundry schedules, late‑night activity, and visitors. For many households, the loss of privacy and control is a significant deterrent.
Financially, the upside is modest. The program caps rent at $200 per week—about $867 per month or $10,400 per year. After increased wear‑and‑tear, higher utility costs, management time, and potential vacancy between tenants, net income for a single room often falls to $500–$650 per month. The one‑time grant ($1,000 for the first room, $500 thereafter) helps with setup but does little for the long‑term picture. Only when homeowners rent multiple rooms does the supplemental income become more meaningful—and at that point, the arrangement begins to resemble a small, owner‑occupied micro‑SRO with all the operational complexity that implies.
A commenter in Willamette Week’s coverage of the pilot captured the prevailing sentiment:
“The potential economic liabilities of participating in this program far outweigh the economic benefits.”
Many Portland homes already use their bedrooms intensively—for children, multigenerational living, home offices, or simply as flexible guest space. A “spare” bedroom is not always functionally spare. Adding a tenant can disrupt household dynamics in ways that are difficult to quantify.
These frictions matter beyond participation rates. They directly influence how appraisers evaluate highest and best use, potential functional obsolescence from increased wear or altered circulation, and long‑term marketability. A home that operates comfortably with one or two boarders may appeal to a narrower pool of future buyers, even if the rental income itself is largely ignored in the appraisal.
The pilot’s success will ultimately hinge on whether enough homeowners decide the trade‑offs are worth it. For appraisers and market participants, that uncertainty is precisely what makes the program worth watching.
Structural Capacity vs. Market Reality
While the previous section outlined why many homeowners may hesitate, the pilot’s very existence rests on a simple fact: Portland’s detached housing stock contains an unusually high number of homes that are structurally well‑suited for room‑rental arrangements. The city’s early‑1900s building patterns, three‑level layouts, and prevalence of basements create a natural foundation for shared‑housing models—at least on paper.
Bedroom Distribution: Portland Has More Large Homes Than People Assume
Detached home sales in 2025 skewed larger than many expect. Nearly 36% of sales had four or more bedrooms, and almost 10% had five or more—precisely the segment most compatible with renting multiple rooms. Since the pilot’s economics only begin to feel meaningful when a homeowner rents two or more bedrooms, this upper tier of the housing stock is where most of the structural feasibility lives.
Bedrooms
No. Sales
% of Total
2 BR
957
17.2%
3 BR
2,580
46.3%
4 BR
1,466
26.3%
5 BR
430
7.7%
6+ BR
87
1.6%
Note: Figures are based on all Multnomah County sales with a Portland city address that sold on the open market in 2025. There were a total of 5,570 sales in 2025. Single-Family Detached Residential | 2025 Data: RMLS | PortlandAppraisalBlog.com
These larger homes are the natural candidates for the pilot’s model. A homeowner with four, five, or six bedrooms has the physical inventory to rent multiple rooms without displacing household needs—a key distinction from smaller homes where “spare” bedrooms are often functionally occupied.
Basements and Separation: Where Feasibility Improves
Basements are not required for participation, but they meaningfully reduce friction. They create partial separation, allow quieter circulation, and soften the proximity concerns described earlier. Portland’s older housing stock delivers here as well: basement prevalence rises sharply with bedroom count.
For appraisers, this matters because basements influence functional utility. A compartmentalized three‑level home with a basement offers natural circulation paths that can reduce (but not eliminate) the friction of shared living. At the same time, these same layouts can signal potential functional obsolescence if the home is modified for multiple tenants—keyed bedroom doors, partitioned spaces, mini‑fridges, or heavier wear patterns that diverge from typical single‑family use.
Structural Capacity Does Not Equal Market Acceptance
Portland’s early‑1900s Craftsman, Foursquare, and bungalow stock—with its compartmentalized floor plans rather than open‑concept designs—creates more “latent capacity” for distributed SRO‑style use than is typical in newer, ranch‑heavy suburbs. But structural suitability is only half the equation. A home that functions well for an owner with two or three boarders may appeal to a narrower pool of future buyers, affecting marketability, comparable selection, and the interpretation of contributory value.
This is where the appraisal lens becomes essential. The housing stock provides the physical opportunity, but the market ultimately determines whether that opportunity translates into value, neutrality, or even a discount.
In short, Portland has the physical inventory. The real question—and the one that matters most for appraisers—is how the market treats homes that participate in the pilot. That requires looking beyond structural feasibility and into the valuation mechanics: GRMs, Fannie Mae’s treatment of boarder income, highest and best use, and the limits of value‑in‑use.
That’s where the next section picks up.
The Valuation Blind Spot: Why Room‑Rental Income Rarely Translates Into Market Value
At first glance, the valuation question appears straightforward: if a homeowner rents out one or more bedrooms in their primary residence under the pilot, does the property become an income‑producing asset? Under conventional GSE guidelines and most VA loans, the answer is generally no. FHA is more flexible, but even there the income must be well‑documented and capped. For the overwhelming majority of transactions, the income generated is treated as value‑in‑use for the current owner rather than market value recognizable by buyers and lenders. That distinction is fundamental.
Why the Income Approach Does Not Apply
The pilot’s temporary 12‑month structure alone prevents capitalization. GRM or income‑approach analysis requires a revenue stream that is durable, predictable, and market‑supported. A pilot program—by definition experimental—does not meet that test. Even if the income were otherwise eligible, appraisers cannot assume it will continue beyond the pilot window.
Fannie Mae’s Selling Guide (B3‑3.8‑01) is clear: “generally, rental income from the borrower’s principal residence…cannot be used to qualify the borrower,” and any qualifying rental income must come from a unit that is separate from the primary residence. A bedroom does not meet that standard—it lacks independent living facilities, so the income it produces is not considered rental income for qualifying or valuation purposes. Limited exceptions exist, such as boarder income with a documented 12‑month history or rental income from a true ADU, but neither applies to a bedroom within the primary dwelling.
Freddie Mac’s guidance (Section 5306.1) follows the same logic. Room‑rental income inside the primary residence is treated as boarder income and is ineligible for qualification except under narrow Home Possible exceptions, which cap boarder income at 30% of qualifying income with a 12‑month history.
FHA is more flexible. Mortgagee Letter 2025‑04 allows boarder income with a 12‑month history (at least 9 of the most recent 12 months documented), capped at 30% of effective income, and supported by bank statements, canceled checks, tax returns, shared‑address documentation, and a written agreement. Even so, the income must be stable, well‑documented, and clearly likely to continue.
VA’s treatment is similarly restrictive, though for different reasons. VA does allow temporary boarder income, but only with two years of signed tax returns showing the income, and only when the rental does not impair the residential character of the property or exceed 25% of the total floor area. The underwriter must also determine that the income has a reasonable likelihood of continued success and justify its inclusion on VA Form 26‑6393. In practice, residual‑income requirements and lender overlays mean many VA lenders exclude boarder income entirely unless it has a long, well‑documented history.
Across all major lending frameworks, the conclusion is consistent: room‑rental income under this pilot is not considered stable rental income. It cannot be capitalized, and it carries no weight in the income approach.
Highest and Best Use Implications
For the vast majority of participating homes, highest and best use remains single‑family residential. Renting bedrooms may provide supplemental cash flow for the current owner, but it does not create a new, financially feasible use that changes the legally permissible or maximally productive use of the property.
There are limited exceptions at the margins. In transitional RM1–RM2 zones—where older single‑family homes sit on land with redevelopment potential—stable boarder income could theoretically support an interim highest and best use if the program persists beyond the pilot window. For aging owners, modest supplemental income may extend the economic life of a marginal property. These situations remain rare and highly property‑specific.
Functional Utility and Marketability
Shared‑living arrangements can also affect functional utility. Homes with multiple boarders frequently show keyed bedroom doors, partitioned spaces, additional refrigerators or mini‑kitchens, heavier wear on shared bathrooms, and circulation patterns that feel more communal than private. While most modifications are reversible, they introduce functional obsolescence relative to typical single‑family buyers and often require additional expense or concessions to restore the home to standard configuration.
Marketability can suffer in subtler ways: more vehicles, increased activity, reduced privacy, and access issues during showings. Sellers may also need to vacate the home before listing, and because these occupants are tenants—not ADU tenants, but tenants under Portland’s relocation‑assistance rules—relocation payments may be required. We covered these rules in detail in our November 2025 post on Portland’s tenant protections.
True SRO vs. Distributed Room Rental
Some homeowners may perceive their property as operating like a micro‑SRO, especially when renting two or three rooms. The comparison does not hold for valuation purposes. Legitimate SROs feature separate leases, independent facilities, and regulatory treatment as income properties. A single‑family home with rented bedrooms may have partial separation—some SFRs do have ADU‑like lower levels with their own kitchens, bathrooms, and entrances—but unless the space meets the definition of a separate dwelling unit, the market continues to value it as a standard single‑family residence.
Bottom Line for Appraisers
The income is real to the participating owner, and in isolated cases a niche buyer may pay a modest premium to continue the arrangement. Unpermitted SRO‑style use already exists quietly in some Portland neighborhoods. If the pilot persists and scales, subtle patterns may eventually emerge in comp selection or marketability adjustments.
Under current rules and market evidence, however, room‑rental income from this program does not contribute meaningfully to market value in typical single‑family transactions. For appraisers, the real blind spot is not ambiguity in the guidelines—it is the gap between public perception and how the lending and valuation system actually treats these arrangements.
Portland’s “Noodles on the Wall” Housing Strategy
The Home‑Sharing Pilot is not an isolated policy experiment. It is one piece of Portland’s broader pattern of trying every available tool to address a persistent housing shortage—from large‑scale capital projects to low‑cost, homeowner‑driven solutions.
The city’s current approach runs on two distinct tracks. The first is the traditional capital‑intensive path: supportive housing, regulated affordable multifamily developments, and publicly funded projects that require years of entitlement, bonding, and construction. These are essential but slow and expensive. The second track is distributed and incremental—ADUs, accessory conversions, and programs like home‑sharing that seek to activate capacity already embedded in the existing housing stock. These approaches rely heavily on voluntary homeowner participation and can scale more quickly when incentives align.
The pilot clearly belongs to the second track. It is inexpensive to launch, fast to implement, and attractive because it demonstrates action without massive upfront capital. Yet its success hinges on the same variable that has challenged similar distributed efforts in Portland: homeowner willingness. ADUs took years of code changes, fee reductions, and cultural normalization before meaningful uptake occurred. Inviting a vetted tenant into one’s primary residence through a city program may require an even larger shift in comfort and risk tolerance.
From an appraisal perspective, this dual‑track reality intersects with a deeper structural issue. Portland’s affordability constraints remain severe. The latest Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index (PABAI) reading for detached homes stands at 79.2—firmly in the “severely constrained” range. Median‑income households cannot qualify for the typical detached home under standard lending assumptions, so they remain renters longer. That downstream pressure tightens the rental market for the very individuals the home‑sharing pilot hopes to serve as tenants.
Even if participation grows, the valuation and lending system largely ignores the resulting room‑rental income. As detailed earlier, GSE guidelines, FHA flexibilities, and VA restrictions treat most boarder income as non‑qualifying or incidental. This disconnect means the pilot may expand functional housing supply without meaningfully affecting how properties are financed or valued in the marketplace.
Whether the pilot becomes a meaningful contributor to supply or remains a modest experiment will ultimately depend on participation rates, program durability, and homeowner comfort with shared‑living arrangements. For appraisers, the real takeaway is not the program’s potential scale, but what it reveals about the limits of distributed solutions in a market where income from spare bedrooms still does not reliably translate into recognized market value.
Readers interested in how this fits into Portland’s larger affordability efforts can explore our ongoing series on affordable housing and related policy shifts.
Conclusion
Portland deserves credit for experimentation. The Home‑Sharing Pilot represents a low‑cost, low‑friction attempt to activate latent capacity already embedded in the city’s existing housing stock. At the individual level, it may create workable arrangements for both homeowners and renters while revealing how people actually use their homes under sustained affordability pressure.
Yet the pilot also underscores a structural reality that appraisers see every day: the valuation and lending system ultimately sets the practical ceiling for distributed housing solutions. Room‑rental income inside a primary residence is not treated as qualifying rental income by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, or most VA lenders. The result is a meaningful disconnect—the program can improve lived experience for participants without materially changing how properties are financed, underwritten, or valued in the marketplace.
Whether home‑sharing evolves into a meaningful contributor to supply or remains a modest, low‑uptake experiment will depend on participation rates, program durability, and broader cultural comfort with shared‑living arrangements. For appraisers and market participants, the key takeaway is straightforward: watch closely how—and if—these arrangements begin appearing in listings, seller disclosures, and comparable sales. The policy may change over time, but the valuation framework will continue to define its real‑world impact.
Sources & Further Reading
City of Portland Launches Home Sharing Pilot Program: Announcement
Portland Affordability Index – PABAI: A Realistic Housing Qualification Metric for the Portland Region: Portland Appraisal Blog
Thanks for reading—I hope you found a useful insight or an unexpected nugget along the way. If you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing for future updates.
CODA
Are you an agent in Portland who wonders why appraisers always do “x”?
A homeowner with questions about appraiser methodology?
If so, feel free to reach out—I enjoy connecting with market participants across Portland and the surrounding counties, and am always happy to help where I can.
And if you’re in need of appraisal services in Portland or anywhere in the Portland Region, we’d be glad to assist.
The Strong Family Apartments transform an underutilized 0.96‑acre site into 75 long‑term affordable family units in Humboldt. With plottage‑enabled density, CM2 zoning, and a 99‑year covenant, the project fills a critical gap in a corridor where only 1%–3% of recent sales were affordable to 60% AMI households.
The Strong Family Apartments at N Alberta St & N Williams Ave in Humboldt, viewed from the intersection. The 4-story building maximizes the assembled 0.96-acre site for 75 restricted affordable family units. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik (March 2026), Portland Appraisal Blog
The Strong Family Apartments rise at the corner of N Alberta Street and N Williams Avenue in North Portland’s Humboldt neighborhood—a site long held by the Strong family, whose roots reflect the deep history of Black homeownership and community life in N/NE Portland. For decades, the property remained a modest home surrounded by open grassy land across multiple tax lots. In 2019, the Portland Housing Bureau acquired the site for land banking, and in 2024 transferred title to Strong AA Limited Partnership—a partnership led by Community Development Partners and Self Enhancement, Inc.—to deliver a 75‑unit affordable multifamily community.
True to the project’s name, the development is intentionally family‑oriented and contains no studios. The unit mix includes 21 one‑bedrooms, 32 two‑bedrooms, and 22 three‑bedrooms, with rents restricted at 30% and 60% of area median income. Eleven units are deeply affordable at ≤30% AMI, and the project prioritizes the City’s N/NE Preference Policy for households displaced by past urban renewal and gentrification in North and Northeast Portland. With 54 family‑sized units, the building fills a gap in a neighborhood where market‑rate options have become increasingly out of reach for moderate‑income families.
From an appraisal perspective, the site tells a clear story. Assemblage of multiple parcels into a unified 0.96‑acre lot unlocked plottage value and enabled a highest‑and‑best‑use shift to family‑oriented multifamily housing in the CM2 zone—a designation with no parking minimums and incentives for dense, transit‑supported development along key corridors. The redevelopment transforms a historically underutilized corner into a long‑term community asset governed by a 99‑year affordability agreement.
This post examines the project through that lens: how zoning, public‑private tools, and assemblage shaped feasibility; how restricted‑use valuation differs from market‑rate ownership in Humboldt; and what the Strong Family Apartments reveal about affordability, displacement, and redevelopment in Portland’s evolving N/NE housing landscape.
Site History, Project Details & Zoning
The Strong Family Apartments occupy a prominent corner at N Alberta Street and N Williams Avenue in North Portland’s Humboldt neighborhood. For decades, the property remained under long‑term ownership by the Strong family, whose generational roots reflect the deep history of Black families in N/NE Portland. Prior to redevelopment, the site consisted of multiple smaller tax lots totaling nearly one acre, largely underutilized as open grassy land surrounding a modest single‑family home—clearly visible in 2019 archival Street View and aerial imagery. In CM2 zoning, a medium‑scale commercial mixed‑use designation intended for transit‑served corridors, a single‑family home on such a large combined parcel represented significant underutilization. The zone supports mid‑rise multifamily buildings rather than detached homes, with no parking minimums and height allowances of 45 feet (up to 75 feet with bonuses).
Archival Google Street View from July 2019 showing the site prior to redevelopment: a modest home surrounded by open grassy land across multiple tax lots. Source: Google Street ViewAerial view of the Strong Family Apartments site pre-redevelopment, with the yellow outline highlighting the approximate assembled 0.96-acre footprint across multiple tax lots. The modest home and open grassy areas were underutilized prior to unification, enabling the shift to highest and best use as 75 family affordable units. Source: Google Maps
In 2019, the Strong family privately sold the property to the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) for land banking, bypassing any open‑market listing. This acquisition aligned with PHB’s strategy to preserve sites for community‑benefit affordable housing in historically impacted N/NE neighborhoods. The property remained in land bank status until 2024, when City Council Ordinance 191817 authorized transfer of the site to Strong AA Limited Partnership, a private ownership entity formed by Community Development Partners (CDP), the project’s developer, and Self Enhancement, Inc. (SEI), the nonprofit service partner. In this structure, an SEI affiliate serves as the Managing General Partner, a CDP affiliate serves as the Administrative General Partner, and a private tax‑credit investor holds the Limited Partner interest (approximately 99.99%). This arrangement is typical for Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments, the federal program that finances most affordable rental housing in the United States. Under LIHTC, private investors receive a dollar‑for‑dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange for investing equity into qualified affordable housing projects, which allows units to rent below market rates. In this structure, the investor provides equity, Community Development Partners oversees development and compliance, and Self Enhancement, Inc. leads resident services and long‑term community engagement.
The project’s financing layers reflect the complexity typical of affordable multifamily development. Approximately $14.2 million came from PHB (including a $11.4 million cash-flow share loan from the 2023 Metro Housing Bond allocation and Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area tax-increment financing), supplemented by Portland Clean Energy Fund grants, Oregon Housing and Community Services low-income housing tax credits, and additional contributions. The development remains privately owned and operated, with Guardian Management overseeing leasing and SEI providing resident services. A 99‑year regulatory agreement with PHB mandates long‑term affordability, adherence to the N/NE Preference Policy, and other public‑benefit requirements.
The development delivers 75 rental units across one‑, two‑, and three‑bedroom floor plans, with all rents restricted for households earning 30% or 60% of area median income (AMI). Eleven units are deeply affordable at ≤30% AMI, prioritizing families with the highest need. The table below summarizes the mix and representative rent levels.
Bedrooms
Number of Units
AMI Level
Estimated Rent Range
1 Bedroom
21
≤30% and ≤60% AMI
~$656 (30% AMI 1BR example)
2 Bedroom
32
≤30% and ≤60% AMI
~$1,195–$1,215 (45% AMI 2BR example)
3 Bedroom
22
≤30% and ≤60% AMI
~$905 (30% AMI 3BR example)
Rents are not subsidized (no project‑based vouchers); residents pay the full restricted amount plus electricity, while the landlord covers water and trash. The mix emphasizes family households, with the N/NE Preference Policy prioritizing those displaced from the area.
Amenities include a large central courtyard with a private playground and nature‑inspired play features, indoor bike parking and storage, on‑site laundry, a community room and kitchen, and resident services focused on youth education, employment support, and family stability. The building targets Earth Advantage Platinum certification for energy efficiency, solar readiness, and a tight building envelope.
Central courtyard during final construction, prepped for family playground and nature play features. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik (March 2026), Portland Appraisal Blog
Construction began in late 2024 after financing closed in August 2024. Completion is expected in Spring 2026, with leasing to follow. The timeline—from 2019 acquisition through multiple funding layers, permitting, and construction—reflects the typical duration and complexity of affordable multifamily development in Portland.
The CM2 zoning directly supported the site’s highest and best use. Multifamily residential is a primary permitted use on transit‑served corridors, with no parking requirement and incentives for density. Assemblage of the multiple lots into a single 0.96‑acre parcel enabled the scale, layout, and family‑oriented amenities that a single‑family home on fragmented parcels could never achieve.
Portland Maps tax lot overlay showing the multiple original parcels assembled into a single 0.96‑acre unified lot. The combined footprint that enabled density and family amenities. Source: Portland Maps
Humboldt is a compact, vibrant inner North/Northeast Portland neighborhood centered around the Alberta–Williams corridor. With a Walk Score of 89 (“Very Walkable”) and a Bike Score of 100 (“Biker’s Paradise”), most daily needs can be met on foot or by bike, supported by a Transit Score of 53 and frequent bus service along N Williams, N Vancouver, and N Killingsworth, plus proximity to the MAX Yellow Line. The area blends long‑standing community roots with ongoing revitalization, anchored by the Alberta Arts District’s murals, galleries, indie shops, cafés, restaurants, and the long‑running Last Thursday street events.
Education and youth resources form a strong neighborhood backbone. Jefferson High School—with its full‑size football field, track, and community programming—sits within Humboldt boundaries and is walkable or bikeable from the Strong site. Nearby KairosPDX, a public charter school focused on culturally responsive education, and Portland Community College Cascade, just north of the neighborhood, add depth through early‑learning programs, K–8 support, and college‑level career and transfer pathways. Together, these institutions reinforce the project’s family‑oriented design and align with the N/NE Preference Policy’s emphasis on retaining generational ties for households with a historical connection to the area.
Jefferson High School in the Humboldt neighborhood, shown with its athletic fields and campus layout as seen in Google Earth. The school sits within walking and biking distance of the Strong Family Apartments. Source: Google MapsKairosPDX, a public charter school in Humboldt, serves as a key family and education resource. Its proximity to the Strong Family Apartments supports the project’s family‑oriented design and 54 two‑ and three‑bedroom units, providing walkable access for residents with children. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik (March 2026), Portland Appraisal Blog
Employment access is unusually strong for a neighborhood‑scale project. The WorkSource Oregon center (State of Oregon Employment Department Portland Metro office) sits directly across N Williams Avenue from the Strong site. The facility provides job search assistance, training referrals, career counseling, unemployment support, and connections to workforce programs—resources that complement SEI’s on‑site youth and employment services and enhance the project’s location externalities for income‑restricted families.
WorkSource Oregon center (State of Oregon Employment Department facility) directly across N Williams Avenue from the Strong Family Apartments site. This proximity to state‑supported job search, training, and employment resources enhances location externalities for residents, particularly families prioritized under the N/NE Preference Policy. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik (March 2026), Portland Appraisal Blog
Grocery access is a modest tradeoff. Unlike some recent Portland affordable developments with immediate adjacency to major grocers (e.g., Trader Joe’s at HollywoodHUB or Safeway at Barbur Apartments), Humboldt lacks a full‑service chain supermarket within its boundaries or within a short walk of the Strong site. The nearest practical options are New Seasons Market on N Williams Avenue (~0.8 miles south, 15–20 minute walk or 5-minute bike ride along protected lanes) and Safeway (~0.8 miles northeast). Delivery services (Instacart, New Seasons own platform, etc.) are widely available, and insulated bags, cargo bikes, or e-assist options mitigate summer heat or load-carrying challenges. The Safeway route involves crossing the major arterial NE Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, making it less preferable for walking. This pattern aligns with the corridor’s multimodal design and the project’s minimal parking program (15 EV-ready shared spaces).
The neighborhood reflects a long history of community change, with significant gentrification pressures, a high renter share (49% per the City of Portland’s 2023 neighborhood demographic profile), and rising ownership costs. These dynamics underscore the importance of restricted affordable family housing in a corridor where market‑rate ownership has become increasingly out of reach for moderate‑income households.
Labeled aerial map (Google Maps) of the Strong Family Apartments site (red pin) and surrounding Humboldt neighborhood amenities. Key resources include WorkSource Oregon, Jefferson High School, KairosPDX, and Portland Community College Cascade—all within a short walk or bike ride. This cluster strengthens the project’s location advantages for income‑restricted families. Source: Google Maps
Data & Analysis — Humboldt’s Owned Market in Contrast
Understanding the context for the Strong Family Apartments requires examining Humboldt’s recent open‑market ownership landscape. This analysis uses RMLS data for 1–3 bedroom SFR‑class transactions (detached, condo, and attached) from 2024 through year‑to‑date 2026—the period that best reflects current market conditions. All figures represent descriptive statistics from the full set of qualifying sales; no sampling or modeling is involved.
The Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index (PABAI) measures how the average home close price compares to what a household at a given income level can qualify for under standard lending assumptions (HUD median MSA income, 20% down payment, and a 28% debt‑to‑income ratio for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance). A PABAI of 100 means the market is exactly affordable at that income level (current HUD median MSA income is $124,100 for a family of four in the Portland metro area) . Values above 100 indicate excess qualifying capacity (more affordable), while values below 100 indicate a shortfall (strained affordability). Full methodology and the interpretation scale are available on the PABAI explainer page.
PABAI Range
Interpretation
120+
Strongly Affordable
100–119
Moderately Affordable
80–99
Strained
Below 80
Severely Constrained
The PABAI is recalibrated here to a 60% AMI benchmark ($74,460 maximum income for a four‑person household), aligning with the majority of Strong’s units.
Humboldt 1–3 Bedroom Sales by Property Type (60% AMI Benchmark)
Property Type
Avg Beds
Avg Close Price
Avg PABAI (60% AMI)
Affordable Sales (out of total)
Detached
2.74
$533,738
55.20
0 / 38
Condo
1.98
$387,939
70.28
1 / 49*
Attached
2.57
$488,357
56.97
0 / 7
*Note: Including 0‑bedroom studio condos (outside the 1–3 bedroom focus) adds two additional qualifying sales, bringing the total to three affordable transactions across the full condo dataset. All three were small 0–1 bedroom units (381–510 SF, no garages, prices $165,000–$237,999). No qualifying sales occurred in any 2–3 bedroom units across any property type.
Detached Homes: The Traditional Family Segment
Detached homes—typically older (average build year 1940), larger (1,933 SF average), and more likely to include garages (0.61 average spaces)—represent the traditional family‑oriented housing stock most comparable to Strong’s 2–3 bedroom units. In this segment, the PABAI falls to a severely constrained 55.20, with zero of the 38 transactions qualifying as affordable for a 60% AMI household. This reflects the substantial income gap required to purchase family‑sized homes in Humboldt under standard qualification criteria.
Condos: Relatively Less Constrained, but Not for Families
Newer condos (average build year 2010, 1,006 SF average, minimal garage access) show a higher average PABAI of 70.28, indicating somewhat less affordability pressure relative to detached homes. However, the coverage is extremely limited: only one qualifying sale in the 1–3 bedroom range, plus two additional qualifying studio units when the dataset is expanded. All three affordable transactions were 0–1 bedroom units—none were family‑sized.
Attached Homes: Low Volume, Same Constraints
The attached segment contains only seven transactions, which reflects the full universe of attached 1–3 bedroom sales in Humboldt during this period. While the volume is low, these are all open‑market transactions, and the affordability pattern mirrors the broader constraints seen in the detached and condo segments. The average PABAI of 56.97 and zero qualifying sales reinforce the limited feasibility of ownership for 60% AMI households in this format.
Affordability Coverage and Market Implications
Across the full set of 94 open‑market 1–3 bedroom transactions in Humboldt, only one sale qualified as affordable at the 60% AMI benchmark—a coverage rate of 1.06%. Expanding the dataset to include studio condos increases the total to 96 transactions and three qualifying sales, raising the coverage rate to roughly 3%. All three affordable units were 0–1 bedroom condos; none were in the 2–3 bedroom range that aligns with Strong’s 54 family‑sized units. This pattern highlights a structural mismatch between Humboldt’s ownership inventory and the needs of 60% AMI households. Family‑sized homes—whether detached, attached, or larger condos—are effectively absent from the affordable ownership landscape, and even the most attainable options are limited to small, entry‑level condos. In this context, the Strong Family Apartments fill a critical gap by providing long‑term, income‑restricted, family‑oriented housing in a corridor where market‑rate ownership has become unattainable for moderate‑income households.
Plottage, Highest and Best Use, and Long‑Term Stability
Plottage and Assemblage Value
The site’s primary value driver is plottage—the incremental value created by combining multiple smaller tax lots into a single unified 0.96‑acre parcel. Prior to redevelopment, the Strong family’s holdings consisted of several fragmented lots occupied by a modest single‑family home and large areas of open grass, a clear underutilization in CM2 zoning, which is intended for medium‑scale mixed‑use and multifamily development along transit corridors.
Assemblage into one unified tax lot unlocked the development potential that individual parcels could not support. The combined footprint enabled a 75‑unit building with a central courtyard, family‑oriented amenities, on‑site services, and efficient circulation—elements that would have been infeasible or uneconomic on scattered lots. This is a textbook example of how public‑private coordination (PHB land banking and subsequent transfer) and zoning incentives (no parking minimums, height and floor-area ratio allowances) convert fragmented, low‑intensity land into a higher and better use.
Highest and Best Use Shift
Before redevelopment, the site’s highest and best use was not continued single‑family residential. While CM2 permits residential uses, the zone’s intent and incentives clearly favor denser multifamily or mixed‑use development on corridors like N Williams Avenue. Maintaining a single‑family home on nearly one acre represented a substantial underutilization of land value in an area with strong multimodal access and ongoing reinvestment.
The realized use—75 income‑restricted family units with courtyard amenities, bike parking, and resident services—aligns directly with CM2’s purpose. The project maximizes allowable density while securing long‑term affordability through a 99‑year regulatory agreement with PHB. The shift from low‑intensity residential to medium‑scale multifamily was made possible by assemblage, zoning compliance, and layered public financing.
Location Externalities
The Alberta/Williams corridor provides unusually strong positive externalities for income‑restricted households. WorkSource Oregon sits directly across N Williams Avenue, offering employment services, training referrals, and career support. Jefferson High School, KairosPDX, and PCC Cascade are all within a short walk or bike ride, creating a cluster of educational and youth‑focused resources. The corridor’s multimodal strengths—protected bike lanes, frequent transit, and walkable amenities—reinforce the project’s feasibility and support absorption for the target demographic.
Income Growth Retention and Long‑Term Stability
A defining feature of the project is tenant stability. Under federal LIHTC rules (the Next Available Unit Rule), households are not required to move out if their income rises after initial qualification. The 99‑year PHB regulatory agreement further ensures long‑term affordability, compliance, and adherence to the N/NE Preference Policy.
This structure supports upward mobility without displacement, stabilizes families over time, and aligns with anti‑displacement goals in N/NE Portland. By allowing residents to remain as their incomes grow, the project promotes continuity rather than churn—an important distinction in a corridor where market‑rate rents and ownership costs have escalated beyond reach for many moderate‑income households.
Takeaways
The Strong Family Apartments illustrate how targeted redevelopment can convert long‑term underutilization into meaningful community benefit. Through assemblage of multiple tax lots into a unified 0.96‑acre parcel, the site shifted from a modest single‑family home with expansive open space to a 75‑unit, family‑oriented affordable multifamily community. The project prioritizes the N/NE Preference Policy and incorporates a central courtyard, playground space, and SEI‑led youth, employment, and family‑stability services.
From an appraisal perspective, the development underscores the role of plottage in unlocking highest and best use. Combining fragmented parcels enabled the scale, density, and site planning required for medium‑scale multifamily in CM2 zoning, where incentives favor transit‑supported housing over low‑intensity residential. The result is a long‑term community asset serving moderate‑income families in a corridor where market‑rate ownership remains unattainable for many.
Long‑term stability is reinforced through the 99‑year affordability covenant and LIHTC’s income‑growth retention rules, which allow households to remain in place as earnings rise. This structure supports upward mobility without displacement and aligns with anti‑displacement goals in N/NE Portland.
In a neighborhood shaped by historical and ongoing pressures on housing access, the Strong Family Apartments demonstrate how zoning, public‑private coordination, and intentional design can preserve community ties while delivering durable affordability.
The Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index: PABAI
Thanks for reading—I hope you found a useful insight or an unexpected nugget along the way. If you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing for future updates.
CODA
Are you an agent in Portland who wonders why appraisers always do “x”?
A homeowner with questions about appraiser methodology?
If so, feel free to reach out—I enjoy connecting with market participants across Portland and the surrounding counties, and am always happy to help where I can.
And if you’re in need of appraisal services in Portland or anywhere in the Portland Region, we’d be glad to assist.
In 2025, Portland Region manufactured homes on owned land rebounded with 315 sales (+14.13%), $148.4M volume (+16.25%), average price $471,014 (+1.86%), and median $435,000 (+3.82%). Rural counties dominated, land value drove stability, and PABAI ranked it the second-most affordable housing segment (111.67).
The Portland White Stag sign. Photo: Abdur Abdul-Malik, Portland Appraisal Blog
The manufactured‑home market in 2025 moved through a year defined by steadier demand, uneven inventory, and a noticeable shift in how long homes took to find the right buyer in some counties. Manufactured homes remain the second most affordable ownership segment in the Portland Region, right after condominiums. Yet the contrast between the two couldn’t be more stark: a condominium typically offers an apartment in an urban core with monthly dues and shared maintenance, while a manufactured home often delivers acreage in rural or pastoral settings—sometimes in remote locales.
Across the Portland Region, roughly 21,400 homes sold in 2025 across the four major residential segments. Manufactured homes accounted for less than 1.5% of that activity, but they continued to play a meaningful role in the market—often representing one of the few affordable paths to owning acreage.
The Portland Region in this update comprises the six Oregon counties of Columbia, Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill. These counties form a contiguous housing ecosystem centered on Portland—Multnomah as the core home county, with the others tightly integrated through commuting patterns, economic ties, and shared market dynamics (e.g., Yamhill’s strong connection via Highway 99W and wine-country adjacency). Beyond Yamhill, the MLS system changes, further distinguishing this six-county area from broader geographic aggregations. For a detailed overview—including county profiles, population data, key value influencers, and why this definition differs from the official seven-county Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro MSA—see our dedicated page: The Portland Region – Six-County Market Area Overview.
All data is sourced from RMLS and reflects open-market manufactured residential sales (excluding condominiums, attached homes, and site-built detached homes). SNL (“Sold Not Listed”) entries—off-market transactions entered retroactively—have been excluded to preserve consistency with true market activity.
All figures have undergone our standard cleaning process to address common RMLS accuracy challenges, including misclassifications (e.g. manufactured homes hiding in other categories, such as the detached category), square footage/price typos, incomplete fields, status/date mismatches, and non-representative entries. For a detailed overview of these issues, their impact on market analysis, and how we mitigate them through automated flagging, cross-verification, and manual review, see the dedicated page: RMLS Data Accuracy Challenges.
It is important to note that this review focuses on manufactured homes permanently affixed to land that is also owned by the same party. This means we are excluding classic mobile home parks where the owner of the mobile home must pay a lease/lot rental fee.
Portland Region 2025 Overview
Overall Regional Trends
The table below summarizes key metrics for attached single-family manufactured residential sales in the Portland Region (Columbia, Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties) for 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$127.6 Million
$148.4 Million
+16.25%
Average Price
$462,411
$471,014
+1.86%
Median Price
$419,000
$435,000
+3.82%
Avg SP/OLP
96.69%
96.14%
-0.57%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$295.71
$299.03
+1.12%
Avg HOA Dues
$74.61
$72.60
-2.69%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
3.48
3.44
-1.15%
Avg Age (Yrs)
28.20
30.50
+8.14%
Avg CDOM
60.55
61.03
+0.79%
Avg Total SF
1,609
1,629
+1.24%
Total # of Sales
276
315
+14.13%
# of New Constr.
3
4
+33.33%
Avg Supply (Mos.)
4.34
4.09
-5.75%
# of REOs
7
4
-42.86%
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Note: The calculated average HOA dues is for units reporting HOA dues (27 sales for 2025). All other metrics use the full dataset (315 sales for 2025). Single-Family Manufactured Residential | 2024 & 2025 Data: RMLS | PortlandAppraisalBlog.com
Key Observations From the Aggregate Data
Manufactured homes posted the strongest price gains of the four major housing segments, with both the average and median rising more than any other category in 2025. What makes this notable is that the segment didn’t rely on a shift toward larger homes or larger parcels; the underlying composition stayed remarkably stable, which means the appreciation reflects genuine demand strength rather than mix effects.
Sales activity expanded sharply, marking one of the largest year‑over‑year increases in the region. The rise in closed sales outpaced the modest changes in size, acreage, and days on market, signaling that more buyers were willing to engage with the segment even as inventory remained thin and the stock continued to age. This represented a return to form as 2023 had 310 sales and 2025 closed 5 additional sales.
County‑level performance was uneven but ultimately supportive of regional growth. Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River delivered clear price strength, each contributing meaningful upward pressure to the regional averages. Clackamas—by far the largest county by sales count—did not appreciate, but it held close to parity with 2024, providing the stability needed for the stronger counties to carry the region forward.
The segment’s physical profile barely changed, with total square footage and acreage holding near 2024 levels and the average home age increasing. In most years, an older stock profile would exert downward pressure on pricing; the fact that prices rose anyway reinforces that the appreciation was demand‑driven rather than structural.
Negotiation patterns and market pace remained steady, with only slight softening in sale‑to‑list ratios and days on market. Buyers were selective, but not disengaged; well‑prepared homes in desirable settings continued to attract firm pricing, while more remote or older properties required patience without signaling a broader slowdown.
Distressed activity stayed low, continuing a multi‑year trend of stability in the manufactured‑home segment. Even with an aging stock and a wide range of property conditions, bank‑owned and short‑sale activity remained minimal, underscoring the segment’s resilience.
Portland Region Scatter Plots
To visualize the distribution of individual manufactured homes sales prices across 2025, the following scatter plots show sales price against date of sale:
The 2025 sales‑price‑versus‑date scatter shows a remarkably steady rhythm for a segment as small and diverse as manufactured homes. Instead of the sharp seasonal swings that often appear in niche markets, the year unfolds as a consistent band of activity, with sales distributed evenly across all twelve months and no visible collapse in the early winter or late fall. The mid‑range of the market remains especially stable, forming a dense horizontal band that anchors the chart and reflects a year in which buyers and sellers were able to find agreement without dramatic shifts in pricing.
A subtle compression appears from late summer through the end of the year, with fewer low‑end outliers and a tighter clustering around the middle of the price distribution. This narrowing is not a sign of weakening; rather, it reflects a firmer pricing floor and a more consistent mix of properties entering the market in the second half of the year. The upper end of the market continues to register throughout this period, with several higher‑priced sales in the fall and early winter preventing the trendline from flattening and reinforcing the sense of a market that remained confident even as the year wound down.
Taken together, the scatter presents a picture of a segment that moved with calm, steady momentum. The absence of volatility, the persistence of a stable mid‑band, the tightening of the lower range, and the presence of late‑year upper‑band sales all point to a market supported by genuine demand rather than mix‑driven noise. The regional pattern is coherent and balanced, and the underlying county‑level dynamics that shaped this composite view become even clearer when examined individually in the latter sections.
To visualize three important variables at one, the following scatter plot shows sales price versus total square footage with each dot sized by acreage (lot size):
The 2025 size‑based scatter shows a manufactured‑home market that organized itself with unusual clarity. Across the full range of square footage, the points form a coherent upward pattern: larger homes generally commanded higher prices, and the relationship holds consistently enough that the trendline is visible even without drawing it. This is not always the case in the MFH segment, where condition, setting, and acreage can create wide vertical dispersion. In 2025, the market behaved with a steadiness that mirrors the tempo seen in the sales‑price‑vs‑date-of-sale scatter.
Acreage adds a second layer of structure. Larger parcels appear as noticeably larger bubbles, and they tend to sit above the main body of the scatter. This is the classic manufactured‑home dynamic: land can elevate a property well beyond what its square footage alone would suggest. But the acreage premium shows up in a controlled, predictable way. The largest bubbles cluster in the upper half of the chart, but they do not distort the overall shape. Instead, they reinforce the idea that land remains a meaningful value driver without overwhelming the distribution.
The middle of the market—roughly 1,200 to 1,800 square feet and $300K to $600K—forms a dense, stable band that anchors the entire chart. This is where most of the region’s manufactured‑home stock lives, and the consistency of this band supports the conclusion that 2025 was a balanced, demand‑supported year. There is no hollowing out, no thinning, and no sign of a collapsing floor. The lower band remains present across the full range of square footage, but it does not expand downward or show distress. Older homes, modest parcels, and properties needing work appear where expected, but they do not dominate the distribution.
One of the more interesting features of the scatter is the presence of larger parcels at lower price points. Several sizable bubbles sit below the main trendline, showing that an eagle‑eyed and patient buyer can still acquire meaningful acreage at a reasonable price—especially when the home is older, dated, or in need of repair. This is a uniquely manufactured‑home phenomenon and one of the few remaining pathways to acreage ownership at accessible price levels.
A closer look at the three largest‑SF outliers: Three points sit well to the right of the main cluster. Yes, there are three, one is on a small lot and is nearly invisible! These three sales are the largest homes in the dataset and each has a clear, logical explanation once examined:
A 42.62‑acre North Plains fixer (cash) sits far below the trendline because the home contributed little value and the buyer was effectively purchasing the land. Its position reflects a classic land‑first MFH transaction.
A 0.64‑acre Multnomah sale (FHA) is nearly invisible on the scatter plot. The home is 4,495 SF and was designed for high‑occupancy use, with seven bedrooms, three bathrooms, dual entrances, and a layout suitable for care‑facility, sober‑living, or multigenerational configurations. Despite its size, the home sits on just over half an acre and sold with FHA financing. Its position on the scatter reflects the market’s tendency to discount institutional or cash‑flow‑oriented layouts, which offer utility but do not command the same price premium as conventional single‑family square footage.
A 2.5‑acre cash sale falls between the other two. This home is 4,385‑SF and combines a 2004 manufactured home with a 2006 stick‑built addition, creating a dual‑living layout. The home sold for cash and includes a barn, shop, multiple utility rooms, and extensive outdoor improvements. Its position on the scatter reflects the market’s tendency to discount unconventional or hybrid layouts, even when the overall utility and acreage are significant.
Bottom-line Summary
Taken together, the aggregate tables and the two regional scatter plots point to a manufactured‑home market that moved with steady, internally consistent momentum throughout 2025. Sales volume was up and prices held firm across the full range of the segment, with a stable mid‑band anchoring the year and no evidence of a collapsing floor or late‑year volatility. The sales‑price‑versus‑date scatter shows a smooth seasonal rhythm with a mild tightening in the second half of the year, while the size‑and‑acreage scatter reveals a market that valued square footage and land in predictable ways, even as it produced the occasional outlier that is characteristic of this segment.
The overall picture is one of broad‑based stability: genuine demand, a coherent price structure, and a distribution shaped more by steady buyer behavior than by mix shifts or one‑off anomalies. The county‑level sections that follow show how each sub‑market contributed to this regional pattern, and why the composite view looks as orderly as it does. But before we examine the individual counties let’s consider a variety of graphs to illuminate the regional data.
Sales Volume
A treemap visualizing the distribution of manufactured homes sales by county in 2025 clearly illustrates the market’s geographic dispersion in this housing segment.
Manufactured‑home activity in 2025 followed a geographic pattern that is completely different from every other housing segment in the Portland region. In detached, attached, and condominium housing, the Big Three counties—Clackamas, Washington, and Multnomah—account for 90% to 99% of all sales. Manufactured homes break that rule entirely. The outlying counties carry a disproportionate share of the activity, and the market’s center of gravity shifts decisively away from the urban core.
Clackamas led the region with 128 sales, forming the largest block of activity and anchoring the year’s volume. But the next‑largest contributor was not Washington or Multnomah—it was Yamhill, with 69 sales. Columbia followed with 44, and only then do Washington (37) and Multnomah (22) appear. Hood River, with 15 sales, rounded out the region. This distribution is not an anomaly; it reflects the structural reality of the segment. Manufactured homes are more common in rural and semi‑rural settings, where larger parcels, lower land costs, and flexible siting options support a broader range of housing stock.
Year‑over‑year changes reinforce the same pattern:
Clackamas and Yamhill both posted meaningful increases in 2025, Hood River grew from a small base, Columbia softened slightly, and Washington and Multnomah held steady. The uneven movement across counties is another way this segment diverges from the rest of the housing market, where the Big Three typically move in near‑unison and dominate the regional totals.
Despite the differences in scale, no county experienced a collapse in activity, and the overall regional volume increased from the prior year. This stability in the volume distribution is one of the reasons the 2025 scatter plots appear so orderly: the market was active, balanced, and supported by steady buyer participation across all twelve months.
This volume structure sets the stage for the analyses that follow. The counties with the largest footprints shape the regional trendlines, while the smaller counties introduce the nuances, acreage dynamics, and outliers that give the manufactured‑home segment its distinctive character.
The following bar chart shows monthly sales volume for 2025:
The 2025 manufactured‑home market followed a classic seasonal pattern, with a slow winter start, a strong spring buildup, and a broad summer plateau that carried through early fall. January, February, and March posted modest activity, each in the mid‑teens to high‑teens, which is typical for this segment and reflects both weather constraints and the slower pace of rural and semi‑rural transactions. Activity accelerated sharply in April and peaked in May at 39 sales—the high point of the year and the moment when all counties were contributing meaningful volume.
The summer months held that momentum. June, July, August, September, and October all posted between 27 and 37 sales, forming a stable mid‑year band that kept the regional scatter plots well‑populated and prevented the kind of thin‑data volatility that can appear in smaller segments. This broad plateau is one of the reasons the 2025 price‑versus‑date scatter reads as smooth and orderly: the market had consistent participation across the warm months.
Volume tapered in November and December, returning to the high‑teens and low‑twenties. This decline mirrors the seasonal slowdown seen in detached and attached housing, but the manufactured‑home segment tends to soften a bit earlier and more noticeably because rural and acreage‑oriented transactions are more sensitive to weather, daylight, and site‑access conditions.
The line graph below compares monthly sales volume across the twelve months for 2024 and 2025.
The month‑by‑month comparison shows that 2025 was not just a stronger year in total volume—it was a more consistent and better‑balanced year across the calendar. Both years start in the mid‑teens, but the paths diverge quickly. In 2024, activity rose unevenly, with a strong March and June, a soft late summer, and a pronounced spike in October. By contrast, 2025 followed a smoother seasonal arc: a slow winter, a clear spring buildup, and a broad summer plateau that carried through early fall.
Several months illustrate this shift clearly. April and May 2025 were substantially stronger than the prior year, with May reaching 39 sales—nearly double the 2024 figure. August and September also outperformed their 2024 counterparts, reinforcing the sense of steady mid‑year demand. Even the late‑year slowdown behaved differently. While both years tapered in November and December, 2025 maintained higher activity, avoiding the sharp drop seen in December 2024.
Sales Price
The following bar chart shows average monthly sales price for 2025:
Note: The y-axis starts at $300,000 to allow better examination of monthly differences.
Average prices in 2025 followed a smooth, well‑behaved seasonal arc that reflects a stable, demand‑supported manufactured‑home market. The year opened softly at $396K in January, which is typical for this segment given winter weather, rural access constraints, and limited buyer activity. Prices rose sharply in February to $496K and settled into the mid‑$400Ks through March, establishing the early‑spring lift that carried into the main selling season.
From April through August, the market held a steady mid‑year plateau. Monthly averages ranged from the high‑$460Ks to just over $500K, with June and July tied for the year’s peak at $505K. This consistency mirrors the strong mid‑year sales volume and is one of the reasons the price‑versus‑date scatter appears so orderly. The market had enough activity—and enough diversity of properties—to produce a stable pricing band without the volatility that can appear in smaller or more rural datasets.
Prices eased gently in September and October, returning to the mid‑$400Ks, but the decline was modest and short‑lived. November held firm at $446K, and December closed the year strongly at $483K, reversing the fall softness and signaling that buyer willingness remained intact even as the seasonal slowdown set in.
The line graph below compares average monthly sales prices across the twelve months for 2024 and 2025.
The year‑over‑year comparison shows two very different pricing rhythms. 2024 moved with sharper swings, including a pronounced April spike and a steep December drop, while 2025 followed a smoother, more stable seasonal arc with a firm close to the year. The contrast between the two lines reinforces the broader theme of 2025 as a steadier, more demand‑supported market.
Several months illustrate the divergence clearly. January and February opened with a reversal of roles: 2024 began higher in January, but 2025 surged ahead in February with a jump to $496K. Through spring, the two years traded places—2024 peaked at $522K in April, while 2025 held a more moderate but consistent mid‑$400K to mid‑$500K range. By early summer, 2025 had clearly taken the lead, with June and July both landing just above $500K, compared to mid‑$400Ks in 2024.
The late‑summer and early‑fall months show the same pattern. August and September were tighter between the two years, but 2025 maintained a slight edge. October and November flipped again, with 2024 briefly rising above 2025, but the difference was modest and short‑lived. The most striking contrast appears in December: 2025 closed at $482,952, while 2024 fell to $394,887, its lowest point of the year. That strong finish in 2025 reinforces the stability seen in the scatter plots and confirms that the market ended the year with pricing confidence rather than seasonal weakness.
Across the full calendar, 2025 shows a smoother, more coherent price structure, with fewer abrupt shifts and a stronger mid‑year plateau. The 2024 line, by comparison, reflects a more volatile pattern shaped by mix, timing, and thinner winter volume.
Cumulative Days on Market
The bar chart below compares average cumulative days on market (CDOM) throughout 2025.
Cumulative Days on Market in 2025 followed a seasonal pattern that is typical for the manufactured‑home segment, but with enough mid‑year stability to reinforce the broader theme of a steady, demand‑supported market. January opened at 74 days—elevated but not unusual for winter, when rural access, weather, and buyer activity all slow. February spiked to 123 days, the highest point of the year, driven by a small number of older listings finally clearing. This kind of early‑year cleanup is common in this segment and does not indicate weakening demand.
From March through October, the market settled into a remarkably consistent mid‑year band. CDOM ranged from the mid‑40s to mid‑60s, with March at 45 days, April at 50, and May at 46. Even as volume increased in the spring and summer, marketing times remained stable, suggesting that buyers were active and well‑matched to available inventory. The summer months—June through August—held between 55 and 63 days, and September and October stayed in the mid‑50s to mid‑60s. This eight‑month stretch of steady CDOM is one of the clearest indicators that the 2025 market was functioning smoothly.
The bar chart below compares cumulative days on market for 2024 and 2025.
The year‑over‑year comparison shows that while the shape of CDOM changed noticeably between 2024 and 2025, the overall level barely moved. The annual averages were 60.55 days in 2024 and 61.03 days in 2025—a difference of less than half a day. In a small segment like manufactured homes, this is exactly what you expect: the monthly pattern can shift dramatically depending on which slow listings clear when, but the underlying market tempo remains stable.
The month‑to‑month behavior is where the two years diverge. Early 2025 opened with elevated winter CDOM—74 days in January and 123 in February—driven by a handful of older listings finally closing out. In contrast, 2024 began unusually low before rising into the 80–90‑day range. Spring flipped the pattern again: 2025 settled quickly into the mid‑40s to mid‑50s, while 2024 spiked to 97 days in April. Summer showed the same contrast, with 2025 holding steady in the mid‑50s to low‑60s and 2024 swinging from the low‑30s in June and July to 104 days in August.
Despite these very different seasonal shapes, both years ultimately lived in the same CDOM neighborhood. Neither year shows evidence of systemic softening, prolonged marketing times, or inventory backing up. Even the late‑year divergence—2024 ending at 100 days versus 84 in 2025—reflects timing and mix rather than a structural shift in demand. Manufactured‑home markets often show sharper winter variability due to rural access, weather, and financing logistics, and both years behaved within that normal envelope.
The key takeaway is that 2025 wasn’t meaningfully “faster” or “slower” than 2024. It was simply smoother. The mid‑year band in 2025 was more stable, the volatility was lower, and the seasonal rhythm was more predictable. The nearly identical annual averages underscore that the manufactured‑home market maintained a consistent, balanced tempo across both years.
Housing Supply
Months of supply (MOS) represents the number of months it would take to absorb current active inventory at the prevailing sales pace, assuming no new listings enter the market. The following bar chart shows MOS by calendar month for 2025:
Months of Housing Supply in 2025 moved through a clean, seasonal arc that mirrors the stability seen in pricing, volume, and CDOM. The year opened with elevated winter supply—4.88 months in January and 6.00 months in February—a normal pattern for manufactured homes, where rural access, weather, and slower buyer activity tend to stretch inventory relative to sales. From there, supply tightened quickly as spring demand arrived. March dropped to 5.39 months, and April fell sharply to 3.34 months, setting up the strongest stretch of the year.
The core of the market—May through October—held a remarkably stable band between roughly 2.8 and 4.1 months. May posted the year’s low at 2.82 months, reflecting strong absorption and a well‑matched buyer pool. June and July rose modestly into the 3.9–4.1 range, and August through October settled into a tight cluster between 3.09 and 3.27 months. This six‑month plateau is one of the clearest indicators that the 2025 manufactured‑home market was balanced and functioning smoothly. Supply was neither constrained nor excessive; it simply tracked demand in a predictable, orderly way.
The late‑year rise—4.38 months in November and 4.67 months in December—is exactly what you expect in this segment. Manufactured homes often see sharper winter slowdowns due to siting logistics, inspections, and financing timelines, and 2025 behaved squarely within that normal envelope. Importantly, even the year‑end levels remained moderate. There was no sign of inventory backing up or buyers stepping away.
The line graph below compares months of supply for 2024 (blue line) and 2025 (red line), with a full y-axis scale to show true proportional differences:
The year‑over‑year comparison shows that while the month‑to‑month pattern of housing supply shifted noticeably between 2024 and 2025, the overall level of inventory remained almost identical. The annual averages were 4.34 months in 2024 and 4.09 months in 2025, a difference of just a quarter of a month. In a small segment like manufactured homes—where a handful of listings can swing a single month—this near‑match in annual supply is expected. What changed was the seasonal shape, not the underlying balance between listings and sales.
The two years diverged early. January and February 2025 opened with 4.88 and 6.00 months of supply, while 2024 began slightly lower at 5.06 and 4.94. By March, the pattern flipped: 2025 eased to 5.39 months, while 2024 tightened sharply to 3.35. Spring continued the alternating rhythm. April and May 2025 dropped to 3.34 and 2.82 months, reflecting strong absorption, while 2024 rose to 4.33 and 4.62. Summer followed the same back‑and‑forth dynamic. June and July 2025 held at 3.90 and 4.11 months, compared to 2.85 and 3.20 in 2024, before August reversed the relationship again with 3.22 months in 2025 versus 4.61 in 2024. Through early fall, 2025 held a tight, stable band between 3.09 and 3.27 months, while 2024 ranged from 3.62 down to 2.45.
The most dramatic difference appears in December. Supply spiked to 8.30 months in 2024, the highest point across both years, while December 2025 closed at 4.67 months, elevated but still within a normal seasonal range. This single month accounts for much of the visual gap between the two lines and reflects timing and mix rather than a structural imbalance.
Despite the month‑to‑month volatility, both years lived in the same overall supply environment. Neither shows evidence of inventory backing up or buyers stepping away. The mid‑year plateau in 2025—roughly three to four months of supply from May through October—reinforces the broader theme of a balanced, well‑functioning market. The 2024 line, by contrast, is more jagged, shaped by thinner volume and a few months where slower listings accumulated. The nearly identical annual averages—4.34 vs. 4.09 months—underscore that the manufactured‑home market maintained a consistent, stable supply profile across both years, even as the monthly curves took different paths.
Histograms
Histograms offer a unique and powerful perspective on the manufactured homes market that traditional summary statistics and bar charts cannot fully capture: they reveal the underlying shape, spread, and clustering of the data, exposing patterns, skewness, tails, and bifurcations that averages and medians alone obscure.
The following histogram shows the distribution of sales price as a percentage of original list price in 2025:
The distribution of sale‑to‑list ratios in 2025 shows a market that centered tightly around full price, with most transactions occurring in a narrow band and only light activity at the extremes. The single largest bin—97.5% to 99.9%—contains 82 sales (26.03%), and the surrounding bins at 95.0%–97.4%, 100.0%–102.4%, and 102.5%–104.9% add another substantial block of activity. Once aggregated, the full 95% to <105% band contains 192 sales, representing 60.95% of all transactions. This is the clearest signal in the dataset: the manufactured‑home market in 2025 rewarded accurate pricing with highly predictable outcomes, and most homes sold within just a few percentage points of their original list price.
Below‑list activity was present but modest. All bins under 90% of list total 60 sales (19.05%), spread thinly across many small ranges. No single low‑ratio bin dominates, and the counts taper quickly as ratios fall. These cases likely reflect idiosyncratic situations—condition issues, location constraints, or listings that began overpriced and required significant repositioning—rather than a structural pattern of deep discounting.
The upper tail behaves similarly. At 105% or above, the combined bins total 23 sales (7.3%), with each individual range containing only a handful of transactions. These are the occasional competitive situations where buyers stretched above list—clean acreage, desirable settings, or well‑prepared homes—but they remain the exception rather than the rule.
Taken together, the histogram shows a market with a very stable pricing center and only light activity at the extremes. The dominant pattern is straightforward: nearly two‑thirds of all manufactured‑home sales closed within 5% of the original list price, and the remaining third is split between modest under‑list adjustments and a small number of above‑list outcomes. The distribution reinforces the broader theme of the 2025 manufactured‑home market—steady demand, accurate pricing, and predictable negotiation dynamics.
The following histogram shows the distribution of sales prices of manufactured homes in 2025:
The 2025 sales‑price histogram shows a market with a clear middle, a long but orderly tail, and no distortive spikes—exactly what you want to see in a manufactured‑home dataset of this size. The distribution builds gradually from the low end, peaks cleanly in the mid‑price ranges, and then tapers in a predictable pattern as prices rise.
The lower bins are thin, with 5 sales (1.59%) in the $100K–$149K range and 6 sales (1.90%) in the $150K–$199K range. Activity begins to take shape in the $200K–$249K and $250K–$299K bins, which together account for 29 sales (9.21%). But the market doesn’t truly concentrate until the $300Ks and $400Ks, where the core of the distribution sits. The $300K–$349K bin contains 29 sales (9.21%), and the $350K–$399K and $400K–$449K bins contain 49 (15.56%) and 48 (15.24%) sales respectively. These two adjacent bins form the single largest block in the histogram, representing more than 30% of all 2025 manufactured‑home sales. This is the pricing center of gravity for the year.
Above that, the distribution steps down gradually. The $450K–$499K bin holds 29 sales (9.21%), and the $500K–$549K and $550K–$599K bins add another 24 (7.62%) and 20 (6.35%) sales. The $600K–$649K bin rises again to 29 sales (9.21%), reflecting the presence of higher‑quality acreage properties that routinely trade in this range. Beyond $650K, the counts taper as expected: 16 sales (5.08%) in the $650K–$699K range, 10 (3.17%) each in the $700K–$749K and $750K–$799K bins, and then small, isolated counts in the $800Ks and $900Ks. The upper tail ends with 3 sales (0.95%) at or above $950K.
The overall shape is exactly what a healthy manufactured‑home market should look like: a strong, well‑defined middle; a gradual taper on both sides; and no evidence of clustering at distressed price points or runaway concentration at the high end.
The following histogram shows the distribution of age for manufactured homes in 2025:
The age distribution for 2025 manufactured‑home sales forms a broad mid‑life plateau centered on homes built roughly 27–32 years ago. The 27–29 year bin accounts for 17.14% of all sales, and the 30–32 year bin adds another 18.73%, placing more than a third of the year’s activity in this single five‑year span. The average age of 30.50 years sits directly within this peak, reflecting the era when a large share of the region’s manufactured stock was built.
Surrounding this core, the bins from 24–47 years make up 73.02% of all 2025 sales, underscoring how strongly the market is anchored in this construction era. Even when the 27–32 year peak is removed, the remaining bins in that same 24–47 year window still represent 37.14% of the dataset, showing that the “shoulders” of the distribution are almost as large as the rest of the histogram combined. This structure reflects the region’s development history: a substantial wave of manufactured‑home construction in the late 1980s and early 1990s, followed by steadier, thinner additions in later decades.
The younger end of the distribution is modest, with only small counts in the 0–2, 3–5, and 6–8 year bins. This reflects the limited pipeline of new or recent construction manufactured homes entering the resale market each year. The older tail behaves similarly, tapering gradually through the 36–53 year bins and ending with just four sales each in the 54–56 and 57+ year ranges. Both tails are present but light, reinforcing that the market is driven primarily by mid‑life homes with predictable turnover and stable buyer demand.
The following histogram shows the distribution of total square footage for manufactured homes in 2025:
The 2025 square‑footage distribution is anchored firmly in the mid‑size ranges, and the average of 1,629 square feet for 2025 sits directly within the broad plateau that defines the market. The single largest bin is1,500–1,649 SF, representing 16.51% of all sales, and it is surrounded by similarly strong activity in the 1,200–1,349 SF (13.65%), 1,350–1,499 SF (12.70%), and 1,650–1,799 SF (13.97%) ranges. When combined with the 1,800–1,949 SF bin (9.84%), this mid‑range cluster forms a dominant block: the 1,050–1,949 SF span accounts for 242 sales, or 76.83% of the entire market. This is the structural center of the manufactured‑home segment in 2025.
Below this core, smaller homes taper in gradually. Units under 1,050 SF total 21sales (6.67%), with modest representation in the 750–899 SF and 900–1,049 SFbins and only isolated activity below 750 square feet. Very small units under 600 square feet are nearly absent, reflecting the limited presence of tiny or cottage‑style manufactured homes in the resale market.
Above the mid‑range plateau, the distribution steps down in a predictable pattern. The 1,950–2,399 SF bins show steady but modest activity, and the upper tail continues through the 2,400–2,699 SF ranges before tapering to the 2,700–2,849 SF and 2,850+ SF bins. Larger homes remain a small share of the market, but they appear consistently enough to form a recognizable tail rather than isolated outliers.
The following histogram shows the distribution of lot size for manufactured homes in 2025:
The 2025 lot‑size distribution shows a market split between small parcels and acreage properties, with a long upper tail that reflects the rural and semi‑rural settings common in this segment. The average lot size of 3.44 acres for 2025 sits well above the median bins, pulled upward by a relatively small number of large‑acreage properties.
The most common range by far is 0.000–0.499 acres, representing 41.90% of all sales. These are smaller‑scale parcels where the home itself drives most of the value. The next several bins—0.500–0.999 acres (9.52%), 1.000–1.499 acres (6.35%), and 1.500–1.999 acres (3.49%)—add another block of modest‑sized lots, placing the majority of 2025 sales on parcels under two acres.
Beyond that point, the distribution transitions into a broad acreage band. The 2.000–2.499 and 2.500–2.999 acre bins account for 5.40% and 6.03% of sales, and the 3.000–3.999 acre ranges add smaller but steady counts. These mid‑acreage parcels reflect the region’s rural inventory—properties with more land utility, outbuildings, or agricultural potential.
The upper tail is long and structurally important. Individual bins from 4.000–4.499 acres through 9.000–9.499 acres each contain only a handful of sales, but the final bin—≥ 9.500 acres, with 31 sales (9.84%)—is large for a specific reason. It is not a natural cluster at 9.5 acres; it is the catch‑all category for the entire long tail of acreage parcels, including properties extending far beyond the histogram’s visible range. Because the chart is limited to 20 bins, all parcels larger than 9.5 acres are compressed into this single bucket, which explains its size and why the average lot size reaches 3.44 acres even though most homes sell on small lots.
The overall shape is a classic manufactured‑home pattern: a dense small‑lot core, a broad mid‑acreage band, and a long, open‑ended tail where large rural parcels trade in small but meaningful numbers. This structure aligns with the pricing, age, and square‑footage distributions already documented, reinforcing the diversity of settings in which manufactured homes operate across the region.
The following histogram shows the distribution of cumulative days on market for manufactured homes in 2026:
The CDOM distribution for 2025 shows a market with a strong, fast‑moving core and a structurally long tail, and the average of 61.03 days for 2025 sits right at the hinge point between those two regimes. The first two bins—0–4 days (14.92%) and 5–9 days (18.73%)—together account for one‑third of all sales, reflecting listings that were priced correctly and absorbed quickly. The next several bins through roughly 30 days add another steady block of activity, with 10–14 days (6.03%), 15–19 days (5.08%), 20–24 days (3.81%), and 25–29 days (2.22%) forming a smooth taper. This early portion of the histogram captures the bulk of the market’s normal turnover (50.79%).
From 30 to about 60 days, the distribution remains relatively stable and evenly populated. Bins such as 35–39 days (4.13%), 40–44 days (2.86%), 45–49 days (4.44%), and 50–54 days (4.44%) show that mid‑range marketing times were common and not indicative of distress. These ranges represent listings that required modest repositioning or simply needed more exposure time, but still behaved predictably within the broader flow of the market.
The upper tail begins around 60 days and extends outward in small but persistent increments. Individual bins from 60–64 days (1.59%) through 90–94 days (1.59%) each contain only a handful of sales, but they form a continuous sequence of slower‑moving listings. The final bin—≥ 95 days, with 59 sales (18.73%)—is large for a structural reason. It is not a natural cluster at 95–100 days; it is the catch‑all category for the entire long tail, which in 2025 extended all the way to a maximum of 712 cumulative days on market. Because the histogram is limited to 20 bins, every listing beyond 95 days is compressed into this single bucket, which explains its size and why the average CDOM reaches 61.03 days even though most sales occur well below that threshold (the median is 27 days).
The overall shape is consistent with a healthy manufactured‑home market: a fast‑moving core, a stable mid‑range, and a long but thin tail of slower‑moving listings that reflect unique property characteristics, pricing adjustments, or atypical circumstances.
Miscellaneous Statistics & Standout Transactions
Here are some of the most notable outliers and extremes from the 2025 Portland Region attached homes market—numbers that illustrate the full range of the data and the extremes buyers and appraisers encounter.
Lowest Sales Price: $115,000—1-bedroom, 1.0-bathroom unit. This manufactured home in Vernonia (Columbia County) predates the current HUD codes and is a compact unit offering a distinct bedroom and living space on a 0.10-acre lot. This unit offers home and land ownership at an affordable price point. Photos of this property are currently available online.
Highest Sales Price: $1,100,000—Two manufactured homes in Canby, Oregon (Clackamas County). This sale involved two homes on one 10.03-acre lot. One home is 1,497 sq. ft. and the other is 1,671 sq. ft. The property has a number of outbuildings and the site offers a lot of flexibility for the owner. Photos of this property are currently available online.
Longest CDOM: 712 days—3-bedroom, 2.0-bathroom home in Mulino, Oregon (Clackamas County). This 1,820-sq. ft. property sold as a heavy fixer, which accounts for why it took so long to close. The unit is situated on 8.27 acres. The land likely represented a significant portion of the value. Photos of this property are currently available online.
Smallest Manufactured Home: 500 SF—1-bedroom, 1.0-bathroom unit. This is the same home as the lowest-priced sale. This property took the crown in two categories!
Largest Manufactured Home: 4,800 SF—3-bedroom, 2.0-bathroom unit in North Plains, Oregon (Washington County). This property is a triple-wide behemoth with solar panels! It is located on a 42.62-acre site and most of the lot is used for merchantable timber. Exterior photos of this property are currently available online.
Largest Lot: 53.39 acres—3-bedroom, 2.0-bathroom unit in Clatskanie, Oregon (Columbia County). This 2,209-sq. ft. home sold as a fixer. The site has several outbuildings and 40 acres of timber. The site is mostly gentle slope, making for a very usable plat. Photos of this property are currently available online.
With the regional aggregate trends, graphs, monthly patterns, histogram analysis, and notable outliers covered, the remainder of this update turns to a county-level breakdown. The following sections present year-over-year comparisons for each of the six counties in the Portland Region—Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Yamhill, Columbia, and Hood River. Each county snapshot includes key metrics, commentary on local drivers, and any segment-specific observations that help explain broader regional patterns.
Multnomah County 2025 Stats
Multnomah County represented 6.98% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Multnomah County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$9.07 Million
$10.27 Million
+13.23%
Average Price
$412,132
$466,676
+13.23%
Median Price
$390,500
$404,000
+3.46%
Avg SP/OLP
98.09%
95.09%
-3.05%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$256.83
$332.86
+29.60%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
1.58
2.94
+85.53%
Avg Age (Yrs)
28.50
31.41
+10.21%
Avg CDOM
66.05
70.50
+6.74%
Avg Total SF
1,635
1,540
-5.84%
Total # of Sales
22
22
0.00%
# of New Constr.
0
0
—
# of REOs
1
0
-100.00%
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Multnomah County continues to play a marginal role in the Portland Region’s manufactured housing market on owned land, with exactly 22 sales in 2025—unchanged from 2024. This persistent low volume reflects the county’s urban character: scarce acreage parcels, zoning restrictions, and competition from higher-density or site-built uses limit opportunities for affixed manufactured homes.
Despite flat transaction count, dollar volume increased 13.23% to $10.27 million, driven by a corresponding 13.23% rise in average price to $466,676 (median up 3.46% to $404,000). Notably, average home size declined slightly, while average lot size nearly doubled (+85.53% to 2.94 acres). The shift toward larger parcels—concentrated in outer rural pockets—lifted total values and contributed to a sharp 29.60% increase in average PPSF, even as the improvements themselves remained modest. Market time lengthened modestly (average CDOM +6.74%), and sales-to-list ratios fell to 95.09% (-3.05%), consistent with the negotiation dynamics typical of acreage properties.
No new construction or distressed sales occurred in 2025, keeping the segment clean and conventional. In this county dominated by the Portland urban core, manufactured homes on owned land most often function as an interim or affordability solution on remaining larger parcels.
The following is a scatter plot of all Multnomah County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Multnomah County reveals a noticeable downward pattern across 2025. This is likely due to a compositional shift in lot size as the year progressed. The larger lots supported elevated prices early on, followed by a general shift toward smaller parcels later in the year—contributing to overall price stability with a downward tilt despite the modest YoY gains in averages.
Washington County 2025 Stats
Washington County represented 11.75% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Washington County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$18.05 Million
$19.59 Million
+8.54%
Average Price
$474,884
$529,362
+11.47%
Median Price
$422,500
$485,000
+14.79%
Avg SP/OLP
97.11%
96.69%
-0.43%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$329.95
$317.46
-3.79%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
2.52
4.38
+73.55%
Avg Age (Yrs)
26.92
33.22
+23.38%
Avg CDOM
56.03
54.11
-3.42%
Avg Total SF
1,496
1,778
+18.87%
Total # of Sales
38
37
-2.63%
# of New Constr.
0
0
—
# of REOs
0
0
—
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Washington County ranks as a solid mid-tier contributor to the Portland Region manufactured housing market on owned land, with 37 sales in 2025—down slightly from 38 in 2024 (see the county summary table above). This modest decline in volume still places Washington among the more active counties for affixed manufactured homes, reflecting its mix of suburban and rural pockets where acreage remains somewhat available compared to urban Multnomah.
Dollar volume increased 8.54% to $19.59 million, supported by stronger per-unit pricing: average price rose 11.47% to $529,362, and median price climbed 14.79% to $485,000. The price gains were driven primarily by larger and newer inventory—average lot size jumped 73.55% to 4.38acres, and average home size grew 18.87% to 1,778 SF—while average PPSF eased slightly (-3.79% to $317.46), a reminder that total value in this segment is heavily influenced by land contribution rather than improvement size alone. Homes also aged noticeably (average +23.38% to 33.22 years), consistent with limited new production. Market absorption improved modestly (average cumulative DOM -3.42% to 54.11 days), and sales-to-list ratios remained stable at 96.69% (-0.43%), typical for acreage properties.
The following is a scatter plot of all Washington County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Washington County shows consistent activity throughout 2025, with prices spanning roughly $300,000 to over $1,000,000 and no strong seasonal or directional trend. A couple of higher-end sales ($800K+ range) appear in late summer/early fall, while mid-range sales ($400K–$700K) dominate the bulk of transactions. This even distribution aligns with the county’s balanced pricing gains despite the slight drop in unit count.
No new construction or distressed sales occurred in 2025, keeping the segment entirely resale. Washington County’s manufactured home market benefits from its position between urban constraints and rural acreage opportunities, allowing larger parcels to support elevated values in a segment where land often outweighs the home itself in the valuation equation.
Clackamas County 2025 Stats
Clackamas County represented 40.63% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Clackamas County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$49.8 Million
$64.10 Million
+28.70%
Average Price
$508,188
$500,743
-1.47%
Median Price
$491,601
$450,000
-8.46%
Avg SP/OLP
96.47%
96.43%
-0.04%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$314.19
$311.37
-0.90%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
4.04
3.13
-22.59%
Avg Age (Yrs)
27.35
28.73
+5.04%
Avg CDOM
51.48
57.95
+12.56%
Avg Total SF
1,663
1,676
+0.78%
Total # of Sales
98
128
+30.61%
# of New Constr.
2
3
+50.00%
# of REOs
1
2
+100.00%
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Clackamas County dominates the Portland Region manufactured housing market on owned land, accounting for 128 sales in 2025 and $64.10 million in volume (43.20%). Sales count surged 30.61% from 98 in 2024, driving a 28.70% increase in dollar volume and cementing Clackamas as the clear leader in this segment.
Despite the robust volume growth, per-unit pricing softened modestly: average price fell 1.47% to $500,743, and median price declined 8.46% to $450,000. Average PPSF remained nearly flat (-0.90% to $311.37), while average lot size decreased 22.59% to 3.13 acres. The smaller average parcels likely contributed to the price softening by reducing land contribution, even as home size stayed stable (+0.78% to 1,676 SF) and age increased slightly (+5.04% to 28.73 years). Market time lengthened (average cumulative DOM +12.56% to 57.95 days), and sales-to-list ratios held steady at 96.43% (-0.04%). New construction remained minimal (3 units), and distressed activity was limited to 2 REOs.
Clackamas County’s average price hewed closely to 2024 levels, remaining essentially neutral in the dataset. With the county representing over 40% of regional sales volume, its stability anchored the market and allowed stronger price gains in smaller-volume counties to modestly lift the regional average.
The following is a scatter plot of all Clackamas County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Clackamas County shows consistent activity throughout 2025, with prices ranging from approximately $200,000 to over $1,100,000 and a subtle upward tilt in the latter half of the year. Higher-value sales (more points in the $600,000–$900,000+ range) become more prevalent from mid-year onward, reflecting a gradual increase in home size closing later in the period. This pattern helps offset some of the modest per-unit price softening seen in the annual averages.
Clackamas County’s leadership in manufactured home sales stems from its relative abundance of rural and semi-rural parcels compared to more urban counties. It represents the engine of the region’s manufactured homes market.
Yamhill County 2025 Stats
Yamhill County represented 21.90% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Yamhill County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$25.43 Million
$29.35 Million
+15.45%
Average Price
$454,037
$425,431
-6.30%
Median Price
$407,500
$410,000
+0.61%
Avg SP/OLP
96.33%
97.60%
+1.32%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$288.51
$270.53
-6.23%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
3.13
2.99
-4.34%
Avg Age (Yrs)
29.75
31.80
+6.88%
Avg CDOM
54.38
50.88
-6.42%
Avg Total SF
1,604
1,579
-1.55%
Total # of Sales
56
69
+23.21%
# of New Constr.
0
0
—
# of REOs
2
1
-50.00%
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Yamhill County ranks as the second-most active market for manufactured homes on owned land in the Portland Region, with 69 sales in 2025—up 23.21% from 56 in 2024—and $29.35 million in volume (+15.45%). This solid rebound in transaction activity underscores the county’s appeal for rural and semi-rural acreage buyers, where manufactured homes remain a viable affordability option.
Despite the volume strength, per-unit pricing softened: average price declined 6.30% to $425,431, while the median held nearly flat (+0.61% to $410,000). Average PPSF fell 6.23% to $270.53, reflecting slightly smaller homes (-1.55% to 1,579 SF) and marginally reduced lot size (-4.34% to 2.99 acres), combined with an older inventory base (+6.88% to 31.80 years). Absorption improved noticeably (average cumulative DOM -6.42% to 50.88 days—the fastest among the six counties), and sales-to-list ratios edged higher to 97.60% (+1.32%), suggesting relatively efficient pricing negotiations for acreage properties.
No new construction occurred, and distressed activity was minimal (one REO). Yamhill County’s manufactured home market benefits from its rural character and relative availability of acreage compared to more urban counties, though land contribution remains the primary valuation driver.
The following is a scatter plot of all Yamhill County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Yamhill County illustrates consistent activity throughout 2025, with prices ranging from approximately $100,000 to nearly $900,000 and the bulk clustering between $300,000 and $600,000. Higher-value sales appear scattered across the year without a dominant trend, reflecting the county’s mix of rural larger-lot parcels (supporting occasional $600K+ closings) and more modest suburban or small-lot transactions that drive much of the volume. The even monthly distribution aligns with the strong unit growth and quicker market time.
Columbia County 2025 Stats
Columbia County represented 13.97% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Columbia County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$20.98 Million
$16.94 Million
-19.27%
Average Price
$395,896
$384,984
-2.76%
Median Price
$373,500
$375,000
+0.40%
Avg SP/OLP
96.83%
93.90%
-3.03%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$256.28
$262.81
+2.55%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
4.66
5.20
+11.70%
Avg Age (Yrs)
29.04
32.23
+10.98%
Avg CDOM
89.19
81.73
-8.37%
Avg Total SF
1,581
1,484
-6.09%
Total # of Sales
53
44
-16.98%
# of New Constr.
1
1
0.00%
# of REOs
3
1
-66.67%
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Columbia County represents a distinctly rural segment of the Portland Region manufactured housing market on owned land, with 44 sales in 2025—down 16.98% from 53 in 2024—and $16.94 million in volume (-19.27%). This volume contraction reflects the county’s remote location and limited buyer pool.
Per-unit pricing showed mild softening: average price declined 2.76% to $384,984, while the median remained essentially flat (+0.40% to $375,000). Average PPSF edged up modestly (+2.55% to $262.81), supported by larger average lot size (+11.70% to 5.20 acres—the highest among the six counties) despite smaller homes (-6.09% to 1,484 SF) and an older inventory (+10.98% to 32.23 years). Market time improved (-8.37% to 81.73 cumulative DOM), though Columbia retained the longest average days on market among the counties. Sales-to-list ratios fell to 93.90% (-3.03%), indicating greater negotiation room typical of more isolated acreage properties. New construction was negligible (1 unit), and distressed activity reduced to one REO.
The following is a scatter plot of all Columbia County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Columbia County illustrates steady but sparse activity throughout 2025, with prices ranging from $115,000 to $725,000 and the majority clustering between $300,000 and $600,000. Higher-value sales appear scattered across the year without a clear trend, reflecting the county’s rural character and large-lot dominance, while lower-end transactions (some on small parcels) contribute to the lower tail. The even monthly distribution aligns with the improved absorption despite the overall volume decline.
Hood River County 2025 Stats
Hood River County represented 4.76% of the total 2025 manufactured home market.
The table below summarizes key metrics for Hood River County manufactured single-family residential sales in 2025 compared with 2024.
Category
2024
2025
% Change
Total $ Volume
$4.30 Million
$8.13 Million
+88.92%
Average Price
$477,994
$541,809
+13.35%
Median Price
$499,000
$560,000
+12.22%
Avg SP/OLP
95.20%
93.56%
-1.72%
Avg PPSF (TSF)
$321.86
$335.87
+4.35%
Avg Lot Size (ac)
1.22
1.35
+10.58%
Avg Age (Yrs)
27.56
26.47
-3.95%
Avg CDOM
34.78
76.47
+119.87%
Avg Total SF
1,639
1,650
+0.68%
Total # of Sales
9
15
+66.67%
# of New Constr.
0
0
—
# of REOs
0
0
—
# of Short Sales
0
0
—
Hood River County represents the smallest but most premium segment of the Portland Region manufactured housing market on owned land, with 15 sales in 2025—up 66.67% from 9 in 2024—and $8.13 million in volume (+88.92%). Despite the low absolute numbers, this rebound reflects renewed interest in the area’s scenic appeal and limited supply of suitable parcels.
Per-unit pricing advanced solidly: average price increased 13.35% to $541,809, and median price rose 12.22% to $560,000—the highest county medians in the region. Average PPSF climbed 4.35% to $335.87 (also the highest), supported by slightly larger lots (+10.58% to 1.35 acres—the smallest average acreage) and stable home size (+0.68% to 1,650 SF). Homes were marginally younger (-3.95% to 26.47 years—the youngest average age), suggesting a mix that included relatively recent builds. Market time extended significantly (+119.87% to 76.47 cumulative DOM), likely due to the county’s remote location and selective buyer pool, while sales-to-list ratios dipped to 93.56% (-1.72%), indicating greater negotiation room on premium properties. No new construction or distressed sales occurred.
Hood River County’s manufactured home market benefits from its unique location in the Columbia River Gorge, where demand for views, recreation, and limited supply drives premium per-unit values despite smaller average lots and extended market time.
The following is a scatter plot of all Hood River County sales in 2025 (sales price vs. date of sale):
The Sales Price vs. Date of Sale scatter for Hood River County shows sparse but steady activity throughout 2025, with prices ranging from $295,000 to $750,000 and the majority clustering between $500,000 and $700,000. Higher-value sales appear scattered across the year without a dominant trend, consistent with the county’s limited inventory and scenic/river-proximity premiums that support elevated pricing even on smaller parcels.
Closing Thoughts
2025 proved to be a year of quiet resilience and uneven recovery for manufactured homes on owned land in the Portland Region. Transaction volume rebounded strongly to 315 sales—essentially returning to 2023 levels after the softer 2024—and total dollar volume rose 16.25% to $148.4 million; putting nearly $21 million more dollars in sellers’ hands. Per-unit pricing held firm with modest gains and PPSF edged up, even as inventory continued to age and new construction remained negligible (just 4 units region-wide).
The year highlighted the segment’s rural character: Clackamas, Yamhill, and Columbia together accounted for ~74% of dollar volume and ~77% of sales, driven by acreage availability that buffered value despite macro pressures. Land contribution remained the dominant valuation driver across counties—diluting PPSF in larger-parcel sales while supporting total prices, especially in premium locations like Hood River (highest avg/median prices and PPSF) and rural pockets in Washington and Columbia (largest average lots). Heterogeneity persisted, with small-sample volatility in lower-volume counties (Multnomah, Hood River) and longer market times in remote areas, yet quicker absorption in Yamhill and Washington.
Distress stayed minimal (4 REOs, zero short sales), and the segment earned its place as the second-most affordable housing type per the Portland Appraisal Blog Affordability Index (PABAI 111.67), trailing only condominiums.
Manufactured homes on owned land continue to serve as a practical affordability pathway and, in many cases, an interim use on rural parcels where site-built homes are viewed as the highest and best use. There were 1,199 acreage site-built sales in 2025; when combined with the 153 manufactured homes on at least 1 acre of land, that yields 1,352 total acreage sales. Manufactured homes thus comprised 11.32% of the acreage market—almost eight times their approximate share of overall regional housing sales volume.
Looking to 2026, key questions include whether sustained rate relief and rural demand will sustain or accelerate volume, whether limited new production will further age the inventory, and how evolving land-use policies might affect acreage availability in outer counties. The niche’s resilience through 2025 suggests it will remain an important, if specialized, component of regional housing options.
What trends do you expect to see in 2026? I’d love to hear your thoughts—feel free to reply here or reach out directly.
Sources & Further Reading
All data presented in this annual review is sourced directly from RMLS and has been subjected to our rigorous cleaning and validation process to ensure reliability for manufactured residential analysis in the six-county Portland Region. The trends, comparisons, and commentary are the result of original appraisal expertise and independent analysis—not aggregated from secondary sources or news summaries.
Portland Affordability Index – PABAI: A Realistic Housing Qualification Metric for the Portland Region: Portland Appraisal Blog
Coda
Thanks for reading—I hope you found a useful insight or an unexpected nugget along the way. If you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing for future updates.
Are you an agent in Portland who wonders why appraisers always do “x”?
A homeowner with questions about appraiser methodology?
If so, feel free to reach out—I enjoy connecting with market participants across Portland and the surrounding counties, and am always happy to help where I can.
And if you’re in need of appraisal services in Portland or anywhere in the Portland Region, we’d be glad to assist.
Portland Appraisal Blog 
_-_025.jpg){kind=link}
_-_010.jpg){kind=link}