Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
HUD panel urges clearer, consistent codes and chassis relief to scale manufactured housing
Loading...
Summary
HUD officials and industry leaders at the Innovative Housing Showcase said inconsistent local codes and overlapping agency standards raise costs and slow factory-built housing; panelists highlighted HUDs federal manufactured-housing code, a push to remove transport chassis, and a single-section "cross-mod" home as examples of how to expand affordable supply.
John Gibbs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, moderated a panel at HUDs Innovative Housing Showcase on the National Mall that framed zoning, permitting and inconsistent building codes as key regulatory barriers to scaling manufactured and modular housing.
"The national home median price for this past May was more than $420,000 and regulations accounted for nearly 1 quarter of that cost," Gibbs said, using the figure to argue that cutting unnecessary regulatory barriers while maintaining safety and quality could lower construction costs and speed delivery.
Why it matters: Panelists said bringing greater consistency to codes and removing operational impediments would make factory production and financing easier, expand where modern manufactured homes can be sited, and reduce costs for buyers. Dr. Leslie Gooch, chief executive officer of the Manufactured Housing Institute, summarized the panels central case: "regulatory efficiency plus factory building equals affordable housing." She urged HUD to remain the primary authority for HUD-code manufactured homes to preserve the federal codes efficiency and protect cross-jurisdictional transport and sales.
Technical and regulatory fixes: Ryan Coker, a vice president at the International Code Council, described two code-related barriers and responses. He said the diversity of local codes and differing regional requirements "creates sort of huge challenges" for factories that serve multiple markets and pointed to ICCs three-year model-code cycle and a product-evaluation pathway that can set acceptance criteria for new technologies such as 3-D printing and panelized or off-site systems. Coker urged stronger engagement between industry, states and localities so model updates are adopted more uniformly at the state and local level.
Design and cost levers: Panelists focused on two concrete levers to expand manufactured housings market reach. Gooch highlighted recent recommendations from the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee to permit vertical, 2-to-4 unit factory-built designs and to allow more elevation options without a permanent chassis underneath. Colt Davis, chief operating officer of Clayton Homebuilding Group, described chassis removal as an item in the Road to Housing Act and said it would enable adding a second-story module and reduce costs for buyers. Davis said removing an unnecessary chassis when a unit is set on a masonry foundation can cut homeowner expenses by roughly $5,000 to $10,000.
Product example and financing: Davis introduced the single-section cross-mod home Clayton displayed on the National Mall, calling it the nations first single-section cross-mod product. He said the 990-square-foot, two-bedroom, two-bath house is built to an energy-efficiency standard, is supported by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and that market counts in the Baltimore area put its expected monthly utility costs at about $100.
Policy and market alignment: Panelists said federal certification and secondary-market support help counter local zoning resistance. Gooch argued that including more HUD-code homes under federal financing umbrellas (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA) makes it harder for local officials to exclude such homes based on unfamiliarity or stigma. Coker added that visual demonstrations, replicable preapproved modular designs and consumer engagement can accelerate local adoption, noting a Minneapolis housing-authority case where preapproved modular designs and aligned financing smoothed infill development.
What panelists did not decide: The session raised legislative and administrative opportunities (for example, chassis removal and updated HUD-code guidance) but produced no formal votes or regulatory changes; panelists emphasized ongoing processes, including HUD reviews and the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee recommendations now before HUD.
Next steps: Gibbs closed by repeating HUDs commitment to work with industry and local governments to reduce barriers and scale innovation so more families can access safe, affordable housing. The showcase invited attendees to view multiple HUD-code and cross-mod examples on the National Mall to see how factory-built solutions could be sited and financed.
