Old North Davis Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) does not support the 3rd and B Street Vision.
The 3rd and B Street Vision violates The Davis Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Residential Design Guidelines, a document written by citizens in a democratic process to protect the few Conservation Districts that exist in Davis. For many years, development within the Conservation Districts (Old North, Old East and Central Park West) has been shaped by The Design Guidelines, which imposes a rational set of rules to sustain the historic, medium density, small scale, pedestrian friendly, shaded neighborhoods that residents love and the citizens of Davis and visitors enjoy. The 3rd & B Street Vision proposes rezoning a portion of the Central Park West Conservation District. Presumably in order to forward this proposal, the EIR makes only a partial effort to evaluate impacts to the remaining Central Park West neighborhood and to the other Conservation Districts. The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space, so consequently the permitting of much taller structures along the 3rd Street corridor looks as if it will generate tremendous impacts on the Central Park West neighborhood as well as Old East and Old North by way of attempts at circumventing the Design Guidelines.
We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful. The “vision” was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as “owner occupied” high end townhouse units. This is in defiance of the Design Guidelines that the rest of the Central Park West neighborhood would still have to conform to. The planning staff notes significant impacts to the historic character of this neighborhood, parking, traffic, loss of urban tree canopy and likely loss of context for other historic structures, i.e. “redevelopment” will occur in a piecemeal fashion, causing the initial demolition of a few original structures, but the eventual loss of context and appeal of the remaining structures and the unraveling of the historic fabric of the current neighborhood.
Additionally, the EIR did not evaluate the impact the densification would have on the traffic and parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. OND fought hard to establish a unique parking district which is community minded and allows for unrestricted parking on 2/3rds of our street space. We currently share our parking with students, downtown workers, and shoppers. About half the commuters who park in Old North come from 15 to 50 miles from Davis and have no other place to park. The “vision” currently allows for intense densification but does not require developers to provide adequate parking (the EIR would allow for in-lieu payments to the City instead), potentially pushing the parking and traffic problem into the surrounding neighborhoods, already over-full.
City Council asked to look at rezoning the 3rd & B Street area to see what could be done about “blight”, as well as to superimpose zoning that would take the place of overlapping and contradictory directions for development there. This rationale is not a valid one, or else it has not been demonstrated. In order to justify requests to demolish, rebuild and sell, B Street South of 5th is being termed an “edge” area with problems common to all arterial streets in the Conservation Districts: exposure of residents to heavier or commercial use across a bordering arterial, multiple needs of a more diverse population (students, residents, landlords, homeowners, developers looking for “infill” lots on which to build new housing.
Developers and property owners, some absentee landlords, are arguing that along B Street, deterioration of the original structures is so severe they are no longer useful or profitable properties and for that reason the same owners want exemptions from The Design Guidelines. Project proposals originating with property owners on B Street have been made with the expectations of special treatment with rewards for poor or no sense of stewardship and long deferred maintenance should they build the high end townhouses they propose, and sell them at substantial profits. The vision while proposing infill is actually setting the stage for demolition and redevelopment of most if not all the historic structures sited within the proposed zoning.
Davis’s other Conservation Districts also border city arterials. Old North has 5th Street on its southern border, G Street on the East and should the ball fields between City Hall and Martin Luther King High School be developed, B Street on its west. Old East shares 5th Street to the north, L to the East and H Street off the downtown. [Along with the residents of the University-Rice Lane neighborhood, we in Old North too frequently find ourselves attending meetings where developers attempt to promote similar treatment for our arterial borders. These areas of high visibility are not just of huge importance in exposing all the passerby to our architectural history, they set the context for the rest of our neighborhood structures and serve useful lives as affordable housing.
If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial and high end residential structures in our neighborhoods as well. Developers are already buying up properties in these neighborhoods, hedging their bets that they can tear down the historic houses and maximize the profitability of the property.
Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.
We have had significant successes using the Design Guidelines, have seen solid gains in resale property values and turnover of housing from rental to owner occupied. In the last five years along C Street alone, five alley accessory structures have been added, three houses once rentals are now owner occupied, eight houses have new coats of paint, new landscaping or both. Other streets in the neighborhood have experienced similar revitalization. Student renters are integrated into the social fabric of the neighborhood by renting our accessory structures, instead of being balkanized into apartment complexes. Our neighborhood is seeing innovative architectural strategies developed: finished basements in new construction that add space without adding a second story, revival architecture, drought tolerant landscaping. We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of houses now approaching a century old. The residents of Old North Davis are sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into improving their existing structures and are offended when we hear that such old houses are good for nothing more than demolition or removal to somewhere else, just because they need
work.
Our Neighborhood Association resists the removal/demolition of contributing structures.
ONDNA has the responsibility to review all proposals for major remodeling or removal/demolition of Old North houses. We work with the owners to comply with The Design Guidelines. In addition, it has provided information to realtors, potential buyers of properties, new owners and developers who benefit from understanding the parameters that apply to the Davis Conservation Districts. We aim to prevent unsuitable plans — inappropriate demolition or inappropriate scale–from being pursued into the drawing stage, in order to prevent wasted effort and dollars. We have a neighborhood with a positive attitude toward adding appropriate density — the original house with perhaps an additional bedroom, bathroom or perhaps an accessory structure on the alley or at the back of the lot.
ONDNA supports research and nomination of eligible structures for Merit Resource and Landmark Designations.
We support such efforts because we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us. Relocating them is little better than archiving their photographs , their histories then setting fire to them. City Council members should encourage property owners along the B Street and 3rd Street corridors to repair their homes, add alley accessory structures, rent to students where appropriate and maintain some our most visible, historically important sets of addresses. The Turtle House, just restored to adaptive reuse by Michael Harrington, is a terrific case in point.
We urge you to attend the Davis City Council Hearings on Tuesday, June 12 after 7:30 PM, and resist the developer vision for B St. high density.
Signed,
Sheryl Lynn Gerety, ONDNA President
Kathleen Groody, ONDNA Treasurer
Steve Tracy, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Dennis Dingemans, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Angela Wilson, ONDNA Former President
We need good graphic representations of how the ambiance of Central Park would be altered by the addition of 3 story commercial/residential buildings with its accompanying traffic. My guess is that it would change from its present feel to an urban, “pocket” park.
We need good graphic representations of how the ambiance of Central Park would be altered by the addition of 3 story commercial/residential buildings with its accompanying traffic. My guess is that it would change from its present feel to an urban, “pocket” park.
We need good graphic representations of how the ambiance of Central Park would be altered by the addition of 3 story commercial/residential buildings with its accompanying traffic. My guess is that it would change from its present feel to an urban, “pocket” park.
We need good graphic representations of how the ambiance of Central Park would be altered by the addition of 3 story commercial/residential buildings with its accompanying traffic. My guess is that it would change from its present feel to an urban, “pocket” park.
David and I mentioned it to folks at The People’s Vanguard of Davis booth yesterday while we were at Farmer’s Market. Those that had not even heard of the project were surprised that such a project would even be considered.
They shared their concerns about how it would severely alter the ambiance of the Central Park area.
I was surprised to learn how many people do not know that this is being considered by council.
David and I mentioned it to folks at The People’s Vanguard of Davis booth yesterday while we were at Farmer’s Market. Those that had not even heard of the project were surprised that such a project would even be considered.
They shared their concerns about how it would severely alter the ambiance of the Central Park area.
I was surprised to learn how many people do not know that this is being considered by council.
David and I mentioned it to folks at The People’s Vanguard of Davis booth yesterday while we were at Farmer’s Market. Those that had not even heard of the project were surprised that such a project would even be considered.
They shared their concerns about how it would severely alter the ambiance of the Central Park area.
I was surprised to learn how many people do not know that this is being considered by council.
David and I mentioned it to folks at The People’s Vanguard of Davis booth yesterday while we were at Farmer’s Market. Those that had not even heard of the project were surprised that such a project would even be considered.
They shared their concerns about how it would severely alter the ambiance of the Central Park area.
I was surprised to learn how many people do not know that this is being considered by council.
Is there a SOS-2(1980 referendum that stopped commericial development at what is now our Farmers Market location)in our future?
Is there a SOS-2(1980 referendum that stopped commericial development at what is now our Farmers Market location)in our future?
Is there a SOS-2(1980 referendum that stopped commericial development at what is now our Farmers Market location)in our future?
Is there a SOS-2(1980 referendum that stopped commericial development at what is now our Farmers Market location)in our future?
“The ‘vision’ was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as ‘owner occupied’ high end townhouse units.”
For me, this is a very important point. Two blocks from campus, we will have a significant development which is specifically designed to provide housing for relatively wealthy urban dwellers, but will keep out all student renters.
In the prologue of the EIR for 3rd & B, it says that a person could be standing in Central Park, a stone’s throw from campus, and because of the current condition of this neighborhood, one would not know that a major university was two blocks away.
Beyond the fact that anyone standing in Central Park in Davis who did not know that UC Davis was nearby is a complete moron, it is a very strange conclusion to assume that the removal of student rentals across from the park and replacing them with high-end condos would make that same person standing in Central Park say, “Oh, yeah, now I get it, there must be a major university two blocks from here.”
“Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.”
FWIW, the Historical Resources Management Commission voted unanimously (4-0, 3 abstentions) to support this idea of applying the current Guidelines for redevelopment projects. (Note: I abstained, as I felt this vote conflicted somewhat with some earlier votes we had taken.)
HMRC also voted unanimously to restrict building heights to 38 feet at their peaks (same as Crepeville) and to not allow any in-lieu parking in the 3rd & B project area. (Both those votes were 7-0.) Likewise, the Planning Commission voted the same on those two points, and I believe their votes were unanimous.
“The ‘vision’ was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as ‘owner occupied’ high end townhouse units.”
For me, this is a very important point. Two blocks from campus, we will have a significant development which is specifically designed to provide housing for relatively wealthy urban dwellers, but will keep out all student renters.
In the prologue of the EIR for 3rd & B, it says that a person could be standing in Central Park, a stone’s throw from campus, and because of the current condition of this neighborhood, one would not know that a major university was two blocks away.
Beyond the fact that anyone standing in Central Park in Davis who did not know that UC Davis was nearby is a complete moron, it is a very strange conclusion to assume that the removal of student rentals across from the park and replacing them with high-end condos would make that same person standing in Central Park say, “Oh, yeah, now I get it, there must be a major university two blocks from here.”
“Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.”
FWIW, the Historical Resources Management Commission voted unanimously (4-0, 3 abstentions) to support this idea of applying the current Guidelines for redevelopment projects. (Note: I abstained, as I felt this vote conflicted somewhat with some earlier votes we had taken.)
HMRC also voted unanimously to restrict building heights to 38 feet at their peaks (same as Crepeville) and to not allow any in-lieu parking in the 3rd & B project area. (Both those votes were 7-0.) Likewise, the Planning Commission voted the same on those two points, and I believe their votes were unanimous.
“The ‘vision’ was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as ‘owner occupied’ high end townhouse units.”
For me, this is a very important point. Two blocks from campus, we will have a significant development which is specifically designed to provide housing for relatively wealthy urban dwellers, but will keep out all student renters.
In the prologue of the EIR for 3rd & B, it says that a person could be standing in Central Park, a stone’s throw from campus, and because of the current condition of this neighborhood, one would not know that a major university was two blocks away.
Beyond the fact that anyone standing in Central Park in Davis who did not know that UC Davis was nearby is a complete moron, it is a very strange conclusion to assume that the removal of student rentals across from the park and replacing them with high-end condos would make that same person standing in Central Park say, “Oh, yeah, now I get it, there must be a major university two blocks from here.”
“Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.”
FWIW, the Historical Resources Management Commission voted unanimously (4-0, 3 abstentions) to support this idea of applying the current Guidelines for redevelopment projects. (Note: I abstained, as I felt this vote conflicted somewhat with some earlier votes we had taken.)
HMRC also voted unanimously to restrict building heights to 38 feet at their peaks (same as Crepeville) and to not allow any in-lieu parking in the 3rd & B project area. (Both those votes were 7-0.) Likewise, the Planning Commission voted the same on those two points, and I believe their votes were unanimous.
“The ‘vision’ was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as ‘owner occupied’ high end townhouse units.”
For me, this is a very important point. Two blocks from campus, we will have a significant development which is specifically designed to provide housing for relatively wealthy urban dwellers, but will keep out all student renters.
In the prologue of the EIR for 3rd & B, it says that a person could be standing in Central Park, a stone’s throw from campus, and because of the current condition of this neighborhood, one would not know that a major university was two blocks away.
Beyond the fact that anyone standing in Central Park in Davis who did not know that UC Davis was nearby is a complete moron, it is a very strange conclusion to assume that the removal of student rentals across from the park and replacing them with high-end condos would make that same person standing in Central Park say, “Oh, yeah, now I get it, there must be a major university two blocks from here.”
“Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.”
FWIW, the Historical Resources Management Commission voted unanimously (4-0, 3 abstentions) to support this idea of applying the current Guidelines for redevelopment projects. (Note: I abstained, as I felt this vote conflicted somewhat with some earlier votes we had taken.)
HMRC also voted unanimously to restrict building heights to 38 feet at their peaks (same as Crepeville) and to not allow any in-lieu parking in the 3rd & B project area. (Both those votes were 7-0.) Likewise, the Planning Commission voted the same on those two points, and I believe their votes were unanimous.
There are graphics in the EIR showing the kind of development that would be allowed by the “Vision’s” proposed amendments to the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, zoning, and the Conservation District Guidelines.
After “removal” (euphemism for demolition) of 12 to 14 existing historic houses and virtually all of the existing tree canopy except the street trees, the B Street blocks would be developed to 3 story high density townhouses with narrow walkways between (paved canyons where nothing will grow) facing B Street, with tiny “front yards” (the setback from the sidewalks greatly reduced).
Then there would be additional 2 story units facing the alleys at the rear of the lots, and the center of the lots would be paved parking lots. The alleys would be widened and “improved,” essentially turned into streets for the rear houses. The graphics show trees and landscaping, but anyone who has looked at these projected plans who knows anything about trees recognizes that nothing, and especially not trees, would survive in the depicted locations.
The revisions to the zoning and Design Guidelines proposed by the project in order to allow this are proported to “respect” and be “compatible” with the existing neighborhood, but are unrecognizable as a document for a Conservation district, and are internally inconsistent with the remaining guidelines and clear unequivocal policies of the General plan, Core Area Specific Plan and existing Design Guidelines to “preserve and protect” the fabric, character and spirit of our traditional (“historic”) neighborhoods.
As the Old North piece indicates, the “Vision” represents a nightmare to the rest of the traditional neighborhoods who democratically developed, rely on, and have been successfully working within the existing Guidelines and zoning, and who simply don’t trust the assurances offered in the EIR that there is no intent to extend this neighborhood dismemberment process to the remaining neighborhoods. If it can be done to University-Rice, their neighbors see no reason to believe the same misguided & disastrous “redevelopment” (“teardown”, scrape & densify) won’t be applied to them.
There are graphics in the EIR showing the kind of development that would be allowed by the “Vision’s” proposed amendments to the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, zoning, and the Conservation District Guidelines.
After “removal” (euphemism for demolition) of 12 to 14 existing historic houses and virtually all of the existing tree canopy except the street trees, the B Street blocks would be developed to 3 story high density townhouses with narrow walkways between (paved canyons where nothing will grow) facing B Street, with tiny “front yards” (the setback from the sidewalks greatly reduced).
Then there would be additional 2 story units facing the alleys at the rear of the lots, and the center of the lots would be paved parking lots. The alleys would be widened and “improved,” essentially turned into streets for the rear houses. The graphics show trees and landscaping, but anyone who has looked at these projected plans who knows anything about trees recognizes that nothing, and especially not trees, would survive in the depicted locations.
The revisions to the zoning and Design Guidelines proposed by the project in order to allow this are proported to “respect” and be “compatible” with the existing neighborhood, but are unrecognizable as a document for a Conservation district, and are internally inconsistent with the remaining guidelines and clear unequivocal policies of the General plan, Core Area Specific Plan and existing Design Guidelines to “preserve and protect” the fabric, character and spirit of our traditional (“historic”) neighborhoods.
As the Old North piece indicates, the “Vision” represents a nightmare to the rest of the traditional neighborhoods who democratically developed, rely on, and have been successfully working within the existing Guidelines and zoning, and who simply don’t trust the assurances offered in the EIR that there is no intent to extend this neighborhood dismemberment process to the remaining neighborhoods. If it can be done to University-Rice, their neighbors see no reason to believe the same misguided & disastrous “redevelopment” (“teardown”, scrape & densify) won’t be applied to them.
There are graphics in the EIR showing the kind of development that would be allowed by the “Vision’s” proposed amendments to the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, zoning, and the Conservation District Guidelines.
After “removal” (euphemism for demolition) of 12 to 14 existing historic houses and virtually all of the existing tree canopy except the street trees, the B Street blocks would be developed to 3 story high density townhouses with narrow walkways between (paved canyons where nothing will grow) facing B Street, with tiny “front yards” (the setback from the sidewalks greatly reduced).
Then there would be additional 2 story units facing the alleys at the rear of the lots, and the center of the lots would be paved parking lots. The alleys would be widened and “improved,” essentially turned into streets for the rear houses. The graphics show trees and landscaping, but anyone who has looked at these projected plans who knows anything about trees recognizes that nothing, and especially not trees, would survive in the depicted locations.
The revisions to the zoning and Design Guidelines proposed by the project in order to allow this are proported to “respect” and be “compatible” with the existing neighborhood, but are unrecognizable as a document for a Conservation district, and are internally inconsistent with the remaining guidelines and clear unequivocal policies of the General plan, Core Area Specific Plan and existing Design Guidelines to “preserve and protect” the fabric, character and spirit of our traditional (“historic”) neighborhoods.
As the Old North piece indicates, the “Vision” represents a nightmare to the rest of the traditional neighborhoods who democratically developed, rely on, and have been successfully working within the existing Guidelines and zoning, and who simply don’t trust the assurances offered in the EIR that there is no intent to extend this neighborhood dismemberment process to the remaining neighborhoods. If it can be done to University-Rice, their neighbors see no reason to believe the same misguided & disastrous “redevelopment” (“teardown”, scrape & densify) won’t be applied to them.
There are graphics in the EIR showing the kind of development that would be allowed by the “Vision’s” proposed amendments to the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, zoning, and the Conservation District Guidelines.
After “removal” (euphemism for demolition) of 12 to 14 existing historic houses and virtually all of the existing tree canopy except the street trees, the B Street blocks would be developed to 3 story high density townhouses with narrow walkways between (paved canyons where nothing will grow) facing B Street, with tiny “front yards” (the setback from the sidewalks greatly reduced).
Then there would be additional 2 story units facing the alleys at the rear of the lots, and the center of the lots would be paved parking lots. The alleys would be widened and “improved,” essentially turned into streets for the rear houses. The graphics show trees and landscaping, but anyone who has looked at these projected plans who knows anything about trees recognizes that nothing, and especially not trees, would survive in the depicted locations.
The revisions to the zoning and Design Guidelines proposed by the project in order to allow this are proported to “respect” and be “compatible” with the existing neighborhood, but are unrecognizable as a document for a Conservation district, and are internally inconsistent with the remaining guidelines and clear unequivocal policies of the General plan, Core Area Specific Plan and existing Design Guidelines to “preserve and protect” the fabric, character and spirit of our traditional (“historic”) neighborhoods.
As the Old North piece indicates, the “Vision” represents a nightmare to the rest of the traditional neighborhoods who democratically developed, rely on, and have been successfully working within the existing Guidelines and zoning, and who simply don’t trust the assurances offered in the EIR that there is no intent to extend this neighborhood dismemberment process to the remaining neighborhoods. If it can be done to University-Rice, their neighbors see no reason to believe the same misguided & disastrous “redevelopment” (“teardown”, scrape & densify) won’t be applied to them.
The controlling City Council majority, which Bob Dunning absurdly refers to as ”The Moderates”, is once again trying to ram one of their grandiose, ill-considered schemes down our throats.
Determined to leave a massive legacy of hubris and incompetence in their wake, their first act seven years ago was to get a stranglehold on the supposedly independent city commissions, turning them into nothing more than rubber stamps for the Council. Expecting the Planning Commission or any other official body to stand up to this Council on our behalf is a fool’s dream. We are on our own.
This group’s first big controversy was the proposed UCD bio-terrorism lab they endorsed wholeheartedly despite widespread citizen resistance. The Council majority knew what was best for us, regardless of what we thought of the plan. After all they had won an election – it was their city to do with as they pleased. Or so they thought. The resulting firestorm soon disabused them of that quaint notion. So, no bio-terror lab after all.
Undaunted, they then tried to force the Covell Center project down our throats, lending all their political weight to that battle. Backed by an obscene amount of campaign cash by the developers, it seemed the council couldn’t lose. But those pesky townspeople once again rejected their wisdom, voting down Covell Center handily.
A similar battle ensued featuring an even more obscene
avalanche of campaign cash proclaiming all the wonderful benefits a giant Target store would bring to Davis. This time the voices of sanity in the community were already exhausted by the Covell Center battle. The grass roots campaign in opposition was no match for the lavishly funded corporate campaign of lies and distortions. Given the disparity of resources involved and the paper thin margin of victory it produced for Target, it seems clear that money, not logic or wisdom, put the council on the winning side for once.
Now comes their latest folly – this time self-generated. They want to gut the existing B street residential strip from Bakers Square all the way to Fourth Street. All or almost all of the 17 older homes are to be demolished to make way for a mixed use district of 3-story condos, and other commercial structures. This Tuesday that plan will be voted on by the Council.
A three-year public process had already developed a plan to save this and the rest of the three core area historic districts from redevelopment – preserving what is left of historic old Davis.
But the newly empowered “moderate” council preferred a public process much like an old-style soviet election – one in which the preordained result was developed in back rooms with a complicit planning department, then trundled into the light of day proposing three alternatives for the newly crowned “B Street Revisioning”. Those options included bad, worse, and truly disgusting.
The public was then offered the opportunity to weigh in on which of these options we would like. Leaving the existing preservation rules intact might have been listed as an option, but clearly was not under any real consideration. Developers led by Maria Ogrydziak and Chuck Roe surprisingly favored the plan that would destroy the historic district but, in turn, reward them and the other developers with mountains of money.
Those of us that actually live in the older district and who worked so hard to develop the existing historic preservation guidelines, pointed out that all of the real options violated everything we had already agreed upon. But, if we had to have one of the plans, we wanted the least destructive option.
Then the commissions weighed in. Endless public testimony to the contrary not withstanding, they were delighted with the new offerings, though some commissioners had the temerity to question one or two of the more odious aspects of the plans. But, all in all, they acted like sycophantic toads and enthusiastically indorsed the worst, or at least the next worst plan – to hell with its impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood or the massive destruction of historic resources that would ensue.
And the council majority, overjoyed at this charade of “participatory democracy” summed it all up. Clearly what the public wanted was for them to get on with the greediest of the plans. And so, at this Tuesday’s Council meeting, they are going to do just that.
A few points to consider:
The property owners involved could make sufficient profits from their land just by letting it develop like the 500 and 600 blocks of F Street where beautifully preserved and rehabbed older homes are now the norm and where two of the remaining houses that still look abandoned are undergoing renovation right now.
Claims have been made that some of the homes along B Street have deteriorated beyond salvation thus creating a sense of urban blight:
First, those property owners have chosen to let their homes decay. To now say that they have to be taken down and can’t be saved is the height of hypocrisy. All it would require is to back up the existing public policy of historic preservation. Let the owners know there will be no pot of gold to reward them for neglecting their properties – other options will soon become apparent.
If they have owned those properties for a long time, as is the case with many of them, their profits will still be substantial. If they snapped up some of those properties recently, betting the Council will hand them a license to print money with the new redevelopment district, then they are land speculators who chose to take that risk. We owe them nothing.
All throughout the three small historic districts, older homes have been reclaimed and rehabbed on a regular basis for the past decade. Basements are becoming more common in these areas allowing homeowners to expand their living spaces without compromising the traditional scale and character of the historic districts.
And the vast majority of people who live in these areas believe passionately in the value and charm of these homes and of their neighborhoods. You can build modern condos anywhere downtown. The core business district is badly planned and under used – if people want to bring more vitality downtown, then add it within the business district. There are gaping holes of underutilized or grossly mis-designed properties throughout the core area. Have the guts to take on those areas.
Davis has a long history leading up to this critical moment in time. It is that history that helps define this town as something other than just another collection of expensive houses plopped down on the valley floor, 10 minutes from Sacramento.
It is this specific history and the structures that still embody that history that lend character and charm to our city and hopefully support the sense of community that for so long has been at the heart of public life here.
But, Davis was a very small town for much of its history until the baby boomers arrived at UCD in the mid-60s, launching Davis into the future on a wave of growth and development. There isn’t a lot left of historic Davis – just three small residential neighborhoods.
The fabled Second Street Victorians succumbed to the wrecking ball half a century ago leaving the Hunt-Boyer mansion less as a reminder of our past and more as a lonely, irrelevant relic surrounded by some of the worst conceivable post-war commercial development.
Davis seemed destined to go the way of Daly City (of the famed pop song Little Boxes) 35 years ago when another set of money-blinded council members set out on a path to build out most if not all of South Davis to the Causeway in a few short years. Just in time, the 1972 elections brought In saner politicians.
The grand development of South Davis, which would have sent our population close to 100,000 by 1980, was cancelled. And the ensuing legal battles made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. Davis won that Supreme Court case, and along with it not only the right but the obligation to make planning decisions based on something more valuable and enduring than just greed.
We have precious little of our historic resources remaining The current council plan will unnecessarily wipe out a significant portion along B street, and will fatally undermine the beautiful University Ave. area as well. One, lone residential street backed up against a commercial and condo district reaching 45 feet in height, is doomed. And then there will be only two historic districts left – with plans already in the works to destroy Old North Davis along Fifth Street next.
In 1972 Davis came to its senses just in time to save the planning process from being bought and paid for by developers. It is time, once again, to stand up to this council and protect the planning process from the overwhelming greed of those who have the current council majority in their pockets. Please come to Tuesday’s Council meeting and voice your outrage at this scheme. It is now or never.
The controlling City Council majority, which Bob Dunning absurdly refers to as ”The Moderates”, is once again trying to ram one of their grandiose, ill-considered schemes down our throats.
Determined to leave a massive legacy of hubris and incompetence in their wake, their first act seven years ago was to get a stranglehold on the supposedly independent city commissions, turning them into nothing more than rubber stamps for the Council. Expecting the Planning Commission or any other official body to stand up to this Council on our behalf is a fool’s dream. We are on our own.
This group’s first big controversy was the proposed UCD bio-terrorism lab they endorsed wholeheartedly despite widespread citizen resistance. The Council majority knew what was best for us, regardless of what we thought of the plan. After all they had won an election – it was their city to do with as they pleased. Or so they thought. The resulting firestorm soon disabused them of that quaint notion. So, no bio-terror lab after all.
Undaunted, they then tried to force the Covell Center project down our throats, lending all their political weight to that battle. Backed by an obscene amount of campaign cash by the developers, it seemed the council couldn’t lose. But those pesky townspeople once again rejected their wisdom, voting down Covell Center handily.
A similar battle ensued featuring an even more obscene
avalanche of campaign cash proclaiming all the wonderful benefits a giant Target store would bring to Davis. This time the voices of sanity in the community were already exhausted by the Covell Center battle. The grass roots campaign in opposition was no match for the lavishly funded corporate campaign of lies and distortions. Given the disparity of resources involved and the paper thin margin of victory it produced for Target, it seems clear that money, not logic or wisdom, put the council on the winning side for once.
Now comes their latest folly – this time self-generated. They want to gut the existing B street residential strip from Bakers Square all the way to Fourth Street. All or almost all of the 17 older homes are to be demolished to make way for a mixed use district of 3-story condos, and other commercial structures. This Tuesday that plan will be voted on by the Council.
A three-year public process had already developed a plan to save this and the rest of the three core area historic districts from redevelopment – preserving what is left of historic old Davis.
But the newly empowered “moderate” council preferred a public process much like an old-style soviet election – one in which the preordained result was developed in back rooms with a complicit planning department, then trundled into the light of day proposing three alternatives for the newly crowned “B Street Revisioning”. Those options included bad, worse, and truly disgusting.
The public was then offered the opportunity to weigh in on which of these options we would like. Leaving the existing preservation rules intact might have been listed as an option, but clearly was not under any real consideration. Developers led by Maria Ogrydziak and Chuck Roe surprisingly favored the plan that would destroy the historic district but, in turn, reward them and the other developers with mountains of money.
Those of us that actually live in the older district and who worked so hard to develop the existing historic preservation guidelines, pointed out that all of the real options violated everything we had already agreed upon. But, if we had to have one of the plans, we wanted the least destructive option.
Then the commissions weighed in. Endless public testimony to the contrary not withstanding, they were delighted with the new offerings, though some commissioners had the temerity to question one or two of the more odious aspects of the plans. But, all in all, they acted like sycophantic toads and enthusiastically indorsed the worst, or at least the next worst plan – to hell with its impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood or the massive destruction of historic resources that would ensue.
And the council majority, overjoyed at this charade of “participatory democracy” summed it all up. Clearly what the public wanted was for them to get on with the greediest of the plans. And so, at this Tuesday’s Council meeting, they are going to do just that.
A few points to consider:
The property owners involved could make sufficient profits from their land just by letting it develop like the 500 and 600 blocks of F Street where beautifully preserved and rehabbed older homes are now the norm and where two of the remaining houses that still look abandoned are undergoing renovation right now.
Claims have been made that some of the homes along B Street have deteriorated beyond salvation thus creating a sense of urban blight:
First, those property owners have chosen to let their homes decay. To now say that they have to be taken down and can’t be saved is the height of hypocrisy. All it would require is to back up the existing public policy of historic preservation. Let the owners know there will be no pot of gold to reward them for neglecting their properties – other options will soon become apparent.
If they have owned those properties for a long time, as is the case with many of them, their profits will still be substantial. If they snapped up some of those properties recently, betting the Council will hand them a license to print money with the new redevelopment district, then they are land speculators who chose to take that risk. We owe them nothing.
All throughout the three small historic districts, older homes have been reclaimed and rehabbed on a regular basis for the past decade. Basements are becoming more common in these areas allowing homeowners to expand their living spaces without compromising the traditional scale and character of the historic districts.
And the vast majority of people who live in these areas believe passionately in the value and charm of these homes and of their neighborhoods. You can build modern condos anywhere downtown. The core business district is badly planned and under used – if people want to bring more vitality downtown, then add it within the business district. There are gaping holes of underutilized or grossly mis-designed properties throughout the core area. Have the guts to take on those areas.
Davis has a long history leading up to this critical moment in time. It is that history that helps define this town as something other than just another collection of expensive houses plopped down on the valley floor, 10 minutes from Sacramento.
It is this specific history and the structures that still embody that history that lend character and charm to our city and hopefully support the sense of community that for so long has been at the heart of public life here.
But, Davis was a very small town for much of its history until the baby boomers arrived at UCD in the mid-60s, launching Davis into the future on a wave of growth and development. There isn’t a lot left of historic Davis – just three small residential neighborhoods.
The fabled Second Street Victorians succumbed to the wrecking ball half a century ago leaving the Hunt-Boyer mansion less as a reminder of our past and more as a lonely, irrelevant relic surrounded by some of the worst conceivable post-war commercial development.
Davis seemed destined to go the way of Daly City (of the famed pop song Little Boxes) 35 years ago when another set of money-blinded council members set out on a path to build out most if not all of South Davis to the Causeway in a few short years. Just in time, the 1972 elections brought In saner politicians.
The grand development of South Davis, which would have sent our population close to 100,000 by 1980, was cancelled. And the ensuing legal battles made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. Davis won that Supreme Court case, and along with it not only the right but the obligation to make planning decisions based on something more valuable and enduring than just greed.
We have precious little of our historic resources remaining The current council plan will unnecessarily wipe out a significant portion along B street, and will fatally undermine the beautiful University Ave. area as well. One, lone residential street backed up against a commercial and condo district reaching 45 feet in height, is doomed. And then there will be only two historic districts left – with plans already in the works to destroy Old North Davis along Fifth Street next.
In 1972 Davis came to its senses just in time to save the planning process from being bought and paid for by developers. It is time, once again, to stand up to this council and protect the planning process from the overwhelming greed of those who have the current council majority in their pockets. Please come to Tuesday’s Council meeting and voice your outrage at this scheme. It is now or never.
The controlling City Council majority, which Bob Dunning absurdly refers to as ”The Moderates”, is once again trying to ram one of their grandiose, ill-considered schemes down our throats.
Determined to leave a massive legacy of hubris and incompetence in their wake, their first act seven years ago was to get a stranglehold on the supposedly independent city commissions, turning them into nothing more than rubber stamps for the Council. Expecting the Planning Commission or any other official body to stand up to this Council on our behalf is a fool’s dream. We are on our own.
This group’s first big controversy was the proposed UCD bio-terrorism lab they endorsed wholeheartedly despite widespread citizen resistance. The Council majority knew what was best for us, regardless of what we thought of the plan. After all they had won an election – it was their city to do with as they pleased. Or so they thought. The resulting firestorm soon disabused them of that quaint notion. So, no bio-terror lab after all.
Undaunted, they then tried to force the Covell Center project down our throats, lending all their political weight to that battle. Backed by an obscene amount of campaign cash by the developers, it seemed the council couldn’t lose. But those pesky townspeople once again rejected their wisdom, voting down Covell Center handily.
A similar battle ensued featuring an even more obscene
avalanche of campaign cash proclaiming all the wonderful benefits a giant Target store would bring to Davis. This time the voices of sanity in the community were already exhausted by the Covell Center battle. The grass roots campaign in opposition was no match for the lavishly funded corporate campaign of lies and distortions. Given the disparity of resources involved and the paper thin margin of victory it produced for Target, it seems clear that money, not logic or wisdom, put the council on the winning side for once.
Now comes their latest folly – this time self-generated. They want to gut the existing B street residential strip from Bakers Square all the way to Fourth Street. All or almost all of the 17 older homes are to be demolished to make way for a mixed use district of 3-story condos, and other commercial structures. This Tuesday that plan will be voted on by the Council.
A three-year public process had already developed a plan to save this and the rest of the three core area historic districts from redevelopment – preserving what is left of historic old Davis.
But the newly empowered “moderate” council preferred a public process much like an old-style soviet election – one in which the preordained result was developed in back rooms with a complicit planning department, then trundled into the light of day proposing three alternatives for the newly crowned “B Street Revisioning”. Those options included bad, worse, and truly disgusting.
The public was then offered the opportunity to weigh in on which of these options we would like. Leaving the existing preservation rules intact might have been listed as an option, but clearly was not under any real consideration. Developers led by Maria Ogrydziak and Chuck Roe surprisingly favored the plan that would destroy the historic district but, in turn, reward them and the other developers with mountains of money.
Those of us that actually live in the older district and who worked so hard to develop the existing historic preservation guidelines, pointed out that all of the real options violated everything we had already agreed upon. But, if we had to have one of the plans, we wanted the least destructive option.
Then the commissions weighed in. Endless public testimony to the contrary not withstanding, they were delighted with the new offerings, though some commissioners had the temerity to question one or two of the more odious aspects of the plans. But, all in all, they acted like sycophantic toads and enthusiastically indorsed the worst, or at least the next worst plan – to hell with its impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood or the massive destruction of historic resources that would ensue.
And the council majority, overjoyed at this charade of “participatory democracy” summed it all up. Clearly what the public wanted was for them to get on with the greediest of the plans. And so, at this Tuesday’s Council meeting, they are going to do just that.
A few points to consider:
The property owners involved could make sufficient profits from their land just by letting it develop like the 500 and 600 blocks of F Street where beautifully preserved and rehabbed older homes are now the norm and where two of the remaining houses that still look abandoned are undergoing renovation right now.
Claims have been made that some of the homes along B Street have deteriorated beyond salvation thus creating a sense of urban blight:
First, those property owners have chosen to let their homes decay. To now say that they have to be taken down and can’t be saved is the height of hypocrisy. All it would require is to back up the existing public policy of historic preservation. Let the owners know there will be no pot of gold to reward them for neglecting their properties – other options will soon become apparent.
If they have owned those properties for a long time, as is the case with many of them, their profits will still be substantial. If they snapped up some of those properties recently, betting the Council will hand them a license to print money with the new redevelopment district, then they are land speculators who chose to take that risk. We owe them nothing.
All throughout the three small historic districts, older homes have been reclaimed and rehabbed on a regular basis for the past decade. Basements are becoming more common in these areas allowing homeowners to expand their living spaces without compromising the traditional scale and character of the historic districts.
And the vast majority of people who live in these areas believe passionately in the value and charm of these homes and of their neighborhoods. You can build modern condos anywhere downtown. The core business district is badly planned and under used – if people want to bring more vitality downtown, then add it within the business district. There are gaping holes of underutilized or grossly mis-designed properties throughout the core area. Have the guts to take on those areas.
Davis has a long history leading up to this critical moment in time. It is that history that helps define this town as something other than just another collection of expensive houses plopped down on the valley floor, 10 minutes from Sacramento.
It is this specific history and the structures that still embody that history that lend character and charm to our city and hopefully support the sense of community that for so long has been at the heart of public life here.
But, Davis was a very small town for much of its history until the baby boomers arrived at UCD in the mid-60s, launching Davis into the future on a wave of growth and development. There isn’t a lot left of historic Davis – just three small residential neighborhoods.
The fabled Second Street Victorians succumbed to the wrecking ball half a century ago leaving the Hunt-Boyer mansion less as a reminder of our past and more as a lonely, irrelevant relic surrounded by some of the worst conceivable post-war commercial development.
Davis seemed destined to go the way of Daly City (of the famed pop song Little Boxes) 35 years ago when another set of money-blinded council members set out on a path to build out most if not all of South Davis to the Causeway in a few short years. Just in time, the 1972 elections brought In saner politicians.
The grand development of South Davis, which would have sent our population close to 100,000 by 1980, was cancelled. And the ensuing legal battles made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. Davis won that Supreme Court case, and along with it not only the right but the obligation to make planning decisions based on something more valuable and enduring than just greed.
We have precious little of our historic resources remaining The current council plan will unnecessarily wipe out a significant portion along B street, and will fatally undermine the beautiful University Ave. area as well. One, lone residential street backed up against a commercial and condo district reaching 45 feet in height, is doomed. And then there will be only two historic districts left – with plans already in the works to destroy Old North Davis along Fifth Street next.
In 1972 Davis came to its senses just in time to save the planning process from being bought and paid for by developers. It is time, once again, to stand up to this council and protect the planning process from the overwhelming greed of those who have the current council majority in their pockets. Please come to Tuesday’s Council meeting and voice your outrage at this scheme. It is now or never.
The controlling City Council majority, which Bob Dunning absurdly refers to as ”The Moderates”, is once again trying to ram one of their grandiose, ill-considered schemes down our throats.
Determined to leave a massive legacy of hubris and incompetence in their wake, their first act seven years ago was to get a stranglehold on the supposedly independent city commissions, turning them into nothing more than rubber stamps for the Council. Expecting the Planning Commission or any other official body to stand up to this Council on our behalf is a fool’s dream. We are on our own.
This group’s first big controversy was the proposed UCD bio-terrorism lab they endorsed wholeheartedly despite widespread citizen resistance. The Council majority knew what was best for us, regardless of what we thought of the plan. After all they had won an election – it was their city to do with as they pleased. Or so they thought. The resulting firestorm soon disabused them of that quaint notion. So, no bio-terror lab after all.
Undaunted, they then tried to force the Covell Center project down our throats, lending all their political weight to that battle. Backed by an obscene amount of campaign cash by the developers, it seemed the council couldn’t lose. But those pesky townspeople once again rejected their wisdom, voting down Covell Center handily.
A similar battle ensued featuring an even more obscene
avalanche of campaign cash proclaiming all the wonderful benefits a giant Target store would bring to Davis. This time the voices of sanity in the community were already exhausted by the Covell Center battle. The grass roots campaign in opposition was no match for the lavishly funded corporate campaign of lies and distortions. Given the disparity of resources involved and the paper thin margin of victory it produced for Target, it seems clear that money, not logic or wisdom, put the council on the winning side for once.
Now comes their latest folly – this time self-generated. They want to gut the existing B street residential strip from Bakers Square all the way to Fourth Street. All or almost all of the 17 older homes are to be demolished to make way for a mixed use district of 3-story condos, and other commercial structures. This Tuesday that plan will be voted on by the Council.
A three-year public process had already developed a plan to save this and the rest of the three core area historic districts from redevelopment – preserving what is left of historic old Davis.
But the newly empowered “moderate” council preferred a public process much like an old-style soviet election – one in which the preordained result was developed in back rooms with a complicit planning department, then trundled into the light of day proposing three alternatives for the newly crowned “B Street Revisioning”. Those options included bad, worse, and truly disgusting.
The public was then offered the opportunity to weigh in on which of these options we would like. Leaving the existing preservation rules intact might have been listed as an option, but clearly was not under any real consideration. Developers led by Maria Ogrydziak and Chuck Roe surprisingly favored the plan that would destroy the historic district but, in turn, reward them and the other developers with mountains of money.
Those of us that actually live in the older district and who worked so hard to develop the existing historic preservation guidelines, pointed out that all of the real options violated everything we had already agreed upon. But, if we had to have one of the plans, we wanted the least destructive option.
Then the commissions weighed in. Endless public testimony to the contrary not withstanding, they were delighted with the new offerings, though some commissioners had the temerity to question one or two of the more odious aspects of the plans. But, all in all, they acted like sycophantic toads and enthusiastically indorsed the worst, or at least the next worst plan – to hell with its impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood or the massive destruction of historic resources that would ensue.
And the council majority, overjoyed at this charade of “participatory democracy” summed it all up. Clearly what the public wanted was for them to get on with the greediest of the plans. And so, at this Tuesday’s Council meeting, they are going to do just that.
A few points to consider:
The property owners involved could make sufficient profits from their land just by letting it develop like the 500 and 600 blocks of F Street where beautifully preserved and rehabbed older homes are now the norm and where two of the remaining houses that still look abandoned are undergoing renovation right now.
Claims have been made that some of the homes along B Street have deteriorated beyond salvation thus creating a sense of urban blight:
First, those property owners have chosen to let their homes decay. To now say that they have to be taken down and can’t be saved is the height of hypocrisy. All it would require is to back up the existing public policy of historic preservation. Let the owners know there will be no pot of gold to reward them for neglecting their properties – other options will soon become apparent.
If they have owned those properties for a long time, as is the case with many of them, their profits will still be substantial. If they snapped up some of those properties recently, betting the Council will hand them a license to print money with the new redevelopment district, then they are land speculators who chose to take that risk. We owe them nothing.
All throughout the three small historic districts, older homes have been reclaimed and rehabbed on a regular basis for the past decade. Basements are becoming more common in these areas allowing homeowners to expand their living spaces without compromising the traditional scale and character of the historic districts.
And the vast majority of people who live in these areas believe passionately in the value and charm of these homes and of their neighborhoods. You can build modern condos anywhere downtown. The core business district is badly planned and under used – if people want to bring more vitality downtown, then add it within the business district. There are gaping holes of underutilized or grossly mis-designed properties throughout the core area. Have the guts to take on those areas.
Davis has a long history leading up to this critical moment in time. It is that history that helps define this town as something other than just another collection of expensive houses plopped down on the valley floor, 10 minutes from Sacramento.
It is this specific history and the structures that still embody that history that lend character and charm to our city and hopefully support the sense of community that for so long has been at the heart of public life here.
But, Davis was a very small town for much of its history until the baby boomers arrived at UCD in the mid-60s, launching Davis into the future on a wave of growth and development. There isn’t a lot left of historic Davis – just three small residential neighborhoods.
The fabled Second Street Victorians succumbed to the wrecking ball half a century ago leaving the Hunt-Boyer mansion less as a reminder of our past and more as a lonely, irrelevant relic surrounded by some of the worst conceivable post-war commercial development.
Davis seemed destined to go the way of Daly City (of the famed pop song Little Boxes) 35 years ago when another set of money-blinded council members set out on a path to build out most if not all of South Davis to the Causeway in a few short years. Just in time, the 1972 elections brought In saner politicians.
The grand development of South Davis, which would have sent our population close to 100,000 by 1980, was cancelled. And the ensuing legal battles made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. Davis won that Supreme Court case, and along with it not only the right but the obligation to make planning decisions based on something more valuable and enduring than just greed.
We have precious little of our historic resources remaining The current council plan will unnecessarily wipe out a significant portion along B street, and will fatally undermine the beautiful University Ave. area as well. One, lone residential street backed up against a commercial and condo district reaching 45 feet in height, is doomed. And then there will be only two historic districts left – with plans already in the works to destroy Old North Davis along Fifth Street next.
In 1972 Davis came to its senses just in time to save the planning process from being bought and paid for by developers. It is time, once again, to stand up to this council and protect the planning process from the overwhelming greed of those who have the current council majority in their pockets. Please come to Tuesday’s Council meeting and voice your outrage at this scheme. It is now or never.
This process has been going on for years, with many, many workshops and neighborhood meetings. Remember, it was the Council during the Mike Harrington era that started the ball on studying this area. I attended a workshop at the Third & B Teen Center last year and I don’t even live in the neighborhood. I seemed to be alerted somehow that these meetings were happening. The plan has been posted on the City’s website for months now. People are acting like this has sneaked up on them. Where has everybody been all this time?
This process has been going on for years, with many, many workshops and neighborhood meetings. Remember, it was the Council during the Mike Harrington era that started the ball on studying this area. I attended a workshop at the Third & B Teen Center last year and I don’t even live in the neighborhood. I seemed to be alerted somehow that these meetings were happening. The plan has been posted on the City’s website for months now. People are acting like this has sneaked up on them. Where has everybody been all this time?
This process has been going on for years, with many, many workshops and neighborhood meetings. Remember, it was the Council during the Mike Harrington era that started the ball on studying this area. I attended a workshop at the Third & B Teen Center last year and I don’t even live in the neighborhood. I seemed to be alerted somehow that these meetings were happening. The plan has been posted on the City’s website for months now. People are acting like this has sneaked up on them. Where has everybody been all this time?
This process has been going on for years, with many, many workshops and neighborhood meetings. Remember, it was the Council during the Mike Harrington era that started the ball on studying this area. I attended a workshop at the Third & B Teen Center last year and I don’t even live in the neighborhood. I seemed to be alerted somehow that these meetings were happening. The plan has been posted on the City’s website for months now. People are acting like this has sneaked up on them. Where has everybody been all this time?
You actually kind of answer your own question–where have people been? Well unless it is in the papers, people do not know what is going on. Most people are obviously not following this process as closely as you are. That’s the problem with this system. I did not know about this until the Vanguard reported on it.
You actually kind of answer your own question–where have people been? Well unless it is in the papers, people do not know what is going on. Most people are obviously not following this process as closely as you are. That’s the problem with this system. I did not know about this until the Vanguard reported on it.
You actually kind of answer your own question–where have people been? Well unless it is in the papers, people do not know what is going on. Most people are obviously not following this process as closely as you are. That’s the problem with this system. I did not know about this until the Vanguard reported on it.
You actually kind of answer your own question–where have people been? Well unless it is in the papers, people do not know what is going on. Most people are obviously not following this process as closely as you are. That’s the problem with this system. I did not know about this until the Vanguard reported on it.
One thing is abundantly clear to anyone who has been following this process, attending the hearings, and actually listening to the public comments:
The public most closely affected is demonstrating loud and clear a total lack of trust in this Council, their appointees, and city staff to act in the public interest by carrying through on the committments expressed in the General Plan and other core area policy documents to preserve Davis’ distinct character and traditional neighborhoods.
One thing is abundantly clear to anyone who has been following this process, attending the hearings, and actually listening to the public comments:
The public most closely affected is demonstrating loud and clear a total lack of trust in this Council, their appointees, and city staff to act in the public interest by carrying through on the committments expressed in the General Plan and other core area policy documents to preserve Davis’ distinct character and traditional neighborhoods.
One thing is abundantly clear to anyone who has been following this process, attending the hearings, and actually listening to the public comments:
The public most closely affected is demonstrating loud and clear a total lack of trust in this Council, their appointees, and city staff to act in the public interest by carrying through on the committments expressed in the General Plan and other core area policy documents to preserve Davis’ distinct character and traditional neighborhoods.
One thing is abundantly clear to anyone who has been following this process, attending the hearings, and actually listening to the public comments:
The public most closely affected is demonstrating loud and clear a total lack of trust in this Council, their appointees, and city staff to act in the public interest by carrying through on the committments expressed in the General Plan and other core area policy documents to preserve Davis’ distinct character and traditional neighborhoods.
Reality check on the probable outcome of the Tuesday Council hearing:
Mayor Sue Greenwald owns property in the area and will not be participating or voting.
The least timid of the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions of the project (38 ft height limit) was introduced by Chair Ochoa at his last hearing before resigning;
it barely passed.
And outside of recommending against this project and trying to support what the Planning Commission did recommend to modify it, the two lengthy hearings by the Historic Commission were primarily an attempt to salvage what little possible from the inevitable coming disaster by trying to give some protection to the most valuable historic resources and prioritize the rest for possible relocation as a last ditch effort to avoid demolition.
Interesting: neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.
Reality check on the probable outcome of the Tuesday Council hearing:
Mayor Sue Greenwald owns property in the area and will not be participating or voting.
The least timid of the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions of the project (38 ft height limit) was introduced by Chair Ochoa at his last hearing before resigning;
it barely passed.
And outside of recommending against this project and trying to support what the Planning Commission did recommend to modify it, the two lengthy hearings by the Historic Commission were primarily an attempt to salvage what little possible from the inevitable coming disaster by trying to give some protection to the most valuable historic resources and prioritize the rest for possible relocation as a last ditch effort to avoid demolition.
Interesting: neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.
Reality check on the probable outcome of the Tuesday Council hearing:
Mayor Sue Greenwald owns property in the area and will not be participating or voting.
The least timid of the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions of the project (38 ft height limit) was introduced by Chair Ochoa at his last hearing before resigning;
it barely passed.
And outside of recommending against this project and trying to support what the Planning Commission did recommend to modify it, the two lengthy hearings by the Historic Commission were primarily an attempt to salvage what little possible from the inevitable coming disaster by trying to give some protection to the most valuable historic resources and prioritize the rest for possible relocation as a last ditch effort to avoid demolition.
Interesting: neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.
Reality check on the probable outcome of the Tuesday Council hearing:
Mayor Sue Greenwald owns property in the area and will not be participating or voting.
The least timid of the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions of the project (38 ft height limit) was introduced by Chair Ochoa at his last hearing before resigning;
it barely passed.
And outside of recommending against this project and trying to support what the Planning Commission did recommend to modify it, the two lengthy hearings by the Historic Commission were primarily an attempt to salvage what little possible from the inevitable coming disaster by trying to give some protection to the most valuable historic resources and prioritize the rest for possible relocation as a last ditch effort to avoid demolition.
Interesting: neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.
You’re right. Look, Souza-Saylor-Asmundson have never opposed a development project, and they are not about to now. It’s that simple. I am just kind of hoping it goes forward without a new EIR, because this EIR is flawed to the point where someone can tie this up in the courts until the new council majority takes over.
You’re right. Look, Souza-Saylor-Asmundson have never opposed a development project, and they are not about to now. It’s that simple. I am just kind of hoping it goes forward without a new EIR, because this EIR is flawed to the point where someone can tie this up in the courts until the new council majority takes over.
You’re right. Look, Souza-Saylor-Asmundson have never opposed a development project, and they are not about to now. It’s that simple. I am just kind of hoping it goes forward without a new EIR, because this EIR is flawed to the point where someone can tie this up in the courts until the new council majority takes over.
You’re right. Look, Souza-Saylor-Asmundson have never opposed a development project, and they are not about to now. It’s that simple. I am just kind of hoping it goes forward without a new EIR, because this EIR is flawed to the point where someone can tie this up in the courts until the new council majority takes over.
“neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.”
Our minutes from our May 21 HRMC meeting on the Final EIR were completed. (There was some disagreement as to the accuracy of those minutes.) I don’t know why the city council would not have them. However, we were informed at the start of our June 4 meeting that the minutes likely could not be completed before the June 12 council meeting. But we were told that the series of recommendations we made — certified by votes — would be passed on to the city council.
“neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.”
Our minutes from our May 21 HRMC meeting on the Final EIR were completed. (There was some disagreement as to the accuracy of those minutes.) I don’t know why the city council would not have them. However, we were informed at the start of our June 4 meeting that the minutes likely could not be completed before the June 12 council meeting. But we were told that the series of recommendations we made — certified by votes — would be passed on to the city council.
“neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.”
Our minutes from our May 21 HRMC meeting on the Final EIR were completed. (There was some disagreement as to the accuracy of those minutes.) I don’t know why the city council would not have them. However, we were informed at the start of our June 4 meeting that the minutes likely could not be completed before the June 12 council meeting. But we were told that the series of recommendations we made — certified by votes — would be passed on to the city council.
“neither the Planning Commission or the City Council have had the advantage of the minutes of the discussions at the commission hearings: the 180 page council staff packet for Tues. (available on the council web site only since Friday evening) includes no commission minutes no public communications.”
Our minutes from our May 21 HRMC meeting on the Final EIR were completed. (There was some disagreement as to the accuracy of those minutes.) I don’t know why the city council would not have them. However, we were informed at the start of our June 4 meeting that the minutes likely could not be completed before the June 12 council meeting. But we were told that the series of recommendations we made — certified by votes — would be passed on to the city council.
The HRMC minutes are available on the city web site. The votes from the June 4 meeting are included in the Staff Report, on pages 10 – 11.
The minutes of the Planning Commission and the prior HRMC meetings are attached to the staff report.
The HRMC minutes are available on the city web site. The votes from the June 4 meeting are included in the Staff Report, on pages 10 – 11.
The minutes of the Planning Commission and the prior HRMC meetings are attached to the staff report.
The HRMC minutes are available on the city web site. The votes from the June 4 meeting are included in the Staff Report, on pages 10 – 11.
The minutes of the Planning Commission and the prior HRMC meetings are attached to the staff report.
The HRMC minutes are available on the city web site. The votes from the June 4 meeting are included in the Staff Report, on pages 10 – 11.
The minutes of the Planning Commission and the prior HRMC meetings are attached to the staff report.
“We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
It’s disappointing to see the retail/commercial potential of 3rd Street (facing the park) dismissed this way. I don’t think you need studies to conclude that businesses there are likely to be successful. Adding more retail would help to integrate the Farmer’s Market and the Central Park activities with the downtown. It’s the mix of owner-occupied housing, retail, commercial, and open areas that makes a successful urban center.
“We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
It’s disappointing to see the retail/commercial potential of 3rd Street (facing the park) dismissed this way. I don’t think you need studies to conclude that businesses there are likely to be successful. Adding more retail would help to integrate the Farmer’s Market and the Central Park activities with the downtown. It’s the mix of owner-occupied housing, retail, commercial, and open areas that makes a successful urban center.
“We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
It’s disappointing to see the retail/commercial potential of 3rd Street (facing the park) dismissed this way. I don’t think you need studies to conclude that businesses there are likely to be successful. Adding more retail would help to integrate the Farmer’s Market and the Central Park activities with the downtown. It’s the mix of owner-occupied housing, retail, commercial, and open areas that makes a successful urban center.
“We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
It’s disappointing to see the retail/commercial potential of 3rd Street (facing the park) dismissed this way. I don’t think you need studies to conclude that businesses there are likely to be successful. Adding more retail would help to integrate the Farmer’s Market and the Central Park activities with the downtown. It’s the mix of owner-occupied housing, retail, commercial, and open areas that makes a successful urban center.
Mr. Shor, I get the impression from reading your posts here that you’ve lived in Davis awhile.
You should re-read the Old North Davis Neighborhood Assciation statement if you merely skimmed it the first time. Here’s the pertinent portion you should take time to consider before firing off more “bottom-line” slanted posts,
with apparently no awareness of any value save retail/monetary
(I don’t really believe that’s true, Mr. Shor, there’s surely more to you than the “bottom line” values you espouse here):
“When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
The high-density retail development the “moderate” City Council advocates would go a long way toward turning Davis into just another cookie-cutter sprawl-blob along I-80. An appropriate habitat for unimaginative narcissists!
Would you really want to live in a retail hub with all the magic that makes Davis Davis stamped out of it? I think not. As I say, you really should reread the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association and take some time to imagine the implications of “retailizing” 3rd Street.
Mr. Shor, I get the impression from reading your posts here that you’ve lived in Davis awhile.
You should re-read the Old North Davis Neighborhood Assciation statement if you merely skimmed it the first time. Here’s the pertinent portion you should take time to consider before firing off more “bottom-line” slanted posts,
with apparently no awareness of any value save retail/monetary
(I don’t really believe that’s true, Mr. Shor, there’s surely more to you than the “bottom line” values you espouse here):
“When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
The high-density retail development the “moderate” City Council advocates would go a long way toward turning Davis into just another cookie-cutter sprawl-blob along I-80. An appropriate habitat for unimaginative narcissists!
Would you really want to live in a retail hub with all the magic that makes Davis Davis stamped out of it? I think not. As I say, you really should reread the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association and take some time to imagine the implications of “retailizing” 3rd Street.
Mr. Shor, I get the impression from reading your posts here that you’ve lived in Davis awhile.
You should re-read the Old North Davis Neighborhood Assciation statement if you merely skimmed it the first time. Here’s the pertinent portion you should take time to consider before firing off more “bottom-line” slanted posts,
with apparently no awareness of any value save retail/monetary
(I don’t really believe that’s true, Mr. Shor, there’s surely more to you than the “bottom line” values you espouse here):
“When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
The high-density retail development the “moderate” City Council advocates would go a long way toward turning Davis into just another cookie-cutter sprawl-blob along I-80. An appropriate habitat for unimaginative narcissists!
Would you really want to live in a retail hub with all the magic that makes Davis Davis stamped out of it? I think not. As I say, you really should reread the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association and take some time to imagine the implications of “retailizing” 3rd Street.
Mr. Shor, I get the impression from reading your posts here that you’ve lived in Davis awhile.
You should re-read the Old North Davis Neighborhood Assciation statement if you merely skimmed it the first time. Here’s the pertinent portion you should take time to consider before firing off more “bottom-line” slanted posts,
with apparently no awareness of any value save retail/monetary
(I don’t really believe that’s true, Mr. Shor, there’s surely more to you than the “bottom line” values you espouse here):
“When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
The high-density retail development the “moderate” City Council advocates would go a long way toward turning Davis into just another cookie-cutter sprawl-blob along I-80. An appropriate habitat for unimaginative narcissists!
Would you really want to live in a retail hub with all the magic that makes Davis Davis stamped out of it? I think not. As I say, you really should reread the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association and take some time to imagine the implications of “retailizing” 3rd Street.
I read the statement by ONDNA very carefully, and found one sentence about retail. I also read the entire EIR. The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.
It seems that the McDonald House at 337 B St. would be preserved. Almost anything would enhance the next part of B Street, next to (or replacing?!) the two-story apartments. I don’t think the Ogrydziaks’ proposal for the corner of 3rd and B is ‘unimaginative narcissism’, and I don’t see that it would adversely affect the nearby historic house at 232 3rd St.
This is my point: the ONDNA appears to be opposing any commercial development, as are some of the neighbors, because of concerns about the demolition of historical resources. But I believe short shrift has been given to the value of greater retail development on the east side of the project area. Staff has incorporated some of the planning commission and historical commission modifications in their revised staff recommendations.
I really don’t see where “cookie-cutter sprawl-blob” comes from here. This isn’t a proposal for a strip mall.
Yes, I’ve been here awhile, although I actually live on a rural property. I’ve had a business on Fifth Street since 1981. I do have a serious concern about the continued success of downtown and neighborhood businesses in Davis, and feel that decisions which will help draw customers to the downtown will help the whole community.
I read the statement by ONDNA very carefully, and found one sentence about retail. I also read the entire EIR. The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.
It seems that the McDonald House at 337 B St. would be preserved. Almost anything would enhance the next part of B Street, next to (or replacing?!) the two-story apartments. I don’t think the Ogrydziaks’ proposal for the corner of 3rd and B is ‘unimaginative narcissism’, and I don’t see that it would adversely affect the nearby historic house at 232 3rd St.
This is my point: the ONDNA appears to be opposing any commercial development, as are some of the neighbors, because of concerns about the demolition of historical resources. But I believe short shrift has been given to the value of greater retail development on the east side of the project area. Staff has incorporated some of the planning commission and historical commission modifications in their revised staff recommendations.
I really don’t see where “cookie-cutter sprawl-blob” comes from here. This isn’t a proposal for a strip mall.
Yes, I’ve been here awhile, although I actually live on a rural property. I’ve had a business on Fifth Street since 1981. I do have a serious concern about the continued success of downtown and neighborhood businesses in Davis, and feel that decisions which will help draw customers to the downtown will help the whole community.
I read the statement by ONDNA very carefully, and found one sentence about retail. I also read the entire EIR. The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.
It seems that the McDonald House at 337 B St. would be preserved. Almost anything would enhance the next part of B Street, next to (or replacing?!) the two-story apartments. I don’t think the Ogrydziaks’ proposal for the corner of 3rd and B is ‘unimaginative narcissism’, and I don’t see that it would adversely affect the nearby historic house at 232 3rd St.
This is my point: the ONDNA appears to be opposing any commercial development, as are some of the neighbors, because of concerns about the demolition of historical resources. But I believe short shrift has been given to the value of greater retail development on the east side of the project area. Staff has incorporated some of the planning commission and historical commission modifications in their revised staff recommendations.
I really don’t see where “cookie-cutter sprawl-blob” comes from here. This isn’t a proposal for a strip mall.
Yes, I’ve been here awhile, although I actually live on a rural property. I’ve had a business on Fifth Street since 1981. I do have a serious concern about the continued success of downtown and neighborhood businesses in Davis, and feel that decisions which will help draw customers to the downtown will help the whole community.
I read the statement by ONDNA very carefully, and found one sentence about retail. I also read the entire EIR. The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.
It seems that the McDonald House at 337 B St. would be preserved. Almost anything would enhance the next part of B Street, next to (or replacing?!) the two-story apartments. I don’t think the Ogrydziaks’ proposal for the corner of 3rd and B is ‘unimaginative narcissism’, and I don’t see that it would adversely affect the nearby historic house at 232 3rd St.
This is my point: the ONDNA appears to be opposing any commercial development, as are some of the neighbors, because of concerns about the demolition of historical resources. But I believe short shrift has been given to the value of greater retail development on the east side of the project area. Staff has incorporated some of the planning commission and historical commission modifications in their revised staff recommendations.
I really don’t see where “cookie-cutter sprawl-blob” comes from here. This isn’t a proposal for a strip mall.
Yes, I’ve been here awhile, although I actually live on a rural property. I’ve had a business on Fifth Street since 1981. I do have a serious concern about the continued success of downtown and neighborhood businesses in Davis, and feel that decisions which will help draw customers to the downtown will help the whole community.
Don is absolutely correct. Connecting the Central Park Farmer’s Market with active uses makes sense and strengthens downtown. I’m not surprised at all with the reaction to Cecilia, given how the information was likely spun. If the question posed was whether folks think buildings and businesses such as the Crepeville building were a good idea for B Street, the
responses would have been much different.
The idea that central park would transition in character to an urban “pocket” park is ludicrous. The Crepeville building didn’t have that effect. The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.
Don is absolutely correct. Connecting the Central Park Farmer’s Market with active uses makes sense and strengthens downtown. I’m not surprised at all with the reaction to Cecilia, given how the information was likely spun. If the question posed was whether folks think buildings and businesses such as the Crepeville building were a good idea for B Street, the
responses would have been much different.
The idea that central park would transition in character to an urban “pocket” park is ludicrous. The Crepeville building didn’t have that effect. The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.
Don is absolutely correct. Connecting the Central Park Farmer’s Market with active uses makes sense and strengthens downtown. I’m not surprised at all with the reaction to Cecilia, given how the information was likely spun. If the question posed was whether folks think buildings and businesses such as the Crepeville building were a good idea for B Street, the
responses would have been much different.
The idea that central park would transition in character to an urban “pocket” park is ludicrous. The Crepeville building didn’t have that effect. The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.
Don is absolutely correct. Connecting the Central Park Farmer’s Market with active uses makes sense and strengthens downtown. I’m not surprised at all with the reaction to Cecilia, given how the information was likely spun. If the question posed was whether folks think buildings and businesses such as the Crepeville building were a good idea for B Street, the
responses would have been much different.
The idea that central park would transition in character to an urban “pocket” park is ludicrous. The Crepeville building didn’t have that effect. The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.
Correction, should state than any series of three story buildings. Let’s also remember that the apartments at 5th and B are two story buildings. 8-10 more feet doesn’t cause the sky to fall.
Correction, should state than any series of three story buildings. Let’s also remember that the apartments at 5th and B are two story buildings. 8-10 more feet doesn’t cause the sky to fall.
Correction, should state than any series of three story buildings. Let’s also remember that the apartments at 5th and B are two story buildings. 8-10 more feet doesn’t cause the sky to fall.
Correction, should state than any series of three story buildings. Let’s also remember that the apartments at 5th and B are two story buildings. 8-10 more feet doesn’t cause the sky to fall.
With all due respect “anonymous” the folks that came by The Vanguard booth and shared their concerns were not fed a “spin.”
They shared their concerns with us and I respect both their views and concerns.
Having not been present when we spoke with them it seems a bit premature to say that we put a spin on it, since you were not there.
You should stop by some time and introduce yourself. We would enjoy chatting with you even if we disagree on some issues.
With all due respect “anonymous” the folks that came by The Vanguard booth and shared their concerns were not fed a “spin.”
They shared their concerns with us and I respect both their views and concerns.
Having not been present when we spoke with them it seems a bit premature to say that we put a spin on it, since you were not there.
You should stop by some time and introduce yourself. We would enjoy chatting with you even if we disagree on some issues.
With all due respect “anonymous” the folks that came by The Vanguard booth and shared their concerns were not fed a “spin.”
They shared their concerns with us and I respect both their views and concerns.
Having not been present when we spoke with them it seems a bit premature to say that we put a spin on it, since you were not there.
You should stop by some time and introduce yourself. We would enjoy chatting with you even if we disagree on some issues.
With all due respect “anonymous” the folks that came by The Vanguard booth and shared their concerns were not fed a “spin.”
They shared their concerns with us and I respect both their views and concerns.
Having not been present when we spoke with them it seems a bit premature to say that we put a spin on it, since you were not there.
You should stop by some time and introduce yourself. We would enjoy chatting with you even if we disagree on some issues.
“The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.”
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
“The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.”
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
“The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.”
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
“The scale of Central Park is much greater than any three story building.”
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
I counter that given the condition of most buildings that front B Street to the west, the development vision would be a huge improvement that would connect B street to the park. Right now, there is no reason to explore that area, traffic is too fast. Limited setbacks are *good* because they encourage window shopping and give people a reason to walk around and explore. Even with residential units, limited (though not zero) setbacks are good in a downtown setting because it personalizes the streetscape and reduces the “dead space” that would otherwise result from a deep setback. If B street between 3rd and 5th becomes activated, traffic calming and bulb-out pedestrian crossings could be considered. On balance, it would be an asset.
I don’t by any means consider this radical change. Remember, the plan visions for these changes. Only property owners (not developers)have the ability to implement them and even then, it would occur slowly over time.
Public participation is the foundation for planning. Keep in mind, the public has had 2.5 years to weigh in on the project.
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
I counter that given the condition of most buildings that front B Street to the west, the development vision would be a huge improvement that would connect B street to the park. Right now, there is no reason to explore that area, traffic is too fast. Limited setbacks are *good* because they encourage window shopping and give people a reason to walk around and explore. Even with residential units, limited (though not zero) setbacks are good in a downtown setting because it personalizes the streetscape and reduces the “dead space” that would otherwise result from a deep setback. If B street between 3rd and 5th becomes activated, traffic calming and bulb-out pedestrian crossings could be considered. On balance, it would be an asset.
I don’t by any means consider this radical change. Remember, the plan visions for these changes. Only property owners (not developers)have the ability to implement them and even then, it would occur slowly over time.
Public participation is the foundation for planning. Keep in mind, the public has had 2.5 years to weigh in on the project.
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
I counter that given the condition of most buildings that front B Street to the west, the development vision would be a huge improvement that would connect B street to the park. Right now, there is no reason to explore that area, traffic is too fast. Limited setbacks are *good* because they encourage window shopping and give people a reason to walk around and explore. Even with residential units, limited (though not zero) setbacks are good in a downtown setting because it personalizes the streetscape and reduces the “dead space” that would otherwise result from a deep setback. If B street between 3rd and 5th becomes activated, traffic calming and bulb-out pedestrian crossings could be considered. On balance, it would be an asset.
I don’t by any means consider this radical change. Remember, the plan visions for these changes. Only property owners (not developers)have the ability to implement them and even then, it would occur slowly over time.
Public participation is the foundation for planning. Keep in mind, the public has had 2.5 years to weigh in on the project.
“Pocket” park WAS a bit of hyperbole, however, scale is only one aspect of an urban park. Limited setbacks, loss of trees,more concrete and traffic activity are others. All park facilities are on its east side with a preferred view to the west, the area under consideration for radical change. In the end, this is an individual subjective judgement which the Davis voter should have the opportunity to weigh in on.
I counter that given the condition of most buildings that front B Street to the west, the development vision would be a huge improvement that would connect B street to the park. Right now, there is no reason to explore that area, traffic is too fast. Limited setbacks are *good* because they encourage window shopping and give people a reason to walk around and explore. Even with residential units, limited (though not zero) setbacks are good in a downtown setting because it personalizes the streetscape and reduces the “dead space” that would otherwise result from a deep setback. If B street between 3rd and 5th becomes activated, traffic calming and bulb-out pedestrian crossings could be considered. On balance, it would be an asset.
I don’t by any means consider this radical change. Remember, the plan visions for these changes. Only property owners (not developers)have the ability to implement them and even then, it would occur slowly over time.
Public participation is the foundation for planning. Keep in mind, the public has had 2.5 years to weigh in on the project.
In the end, this is an personal judgement, whether the periphery of Central Park should abruptly change to commercial activity(much like pedestrian plazas are surrounded by a wall of shops) or ease more gracefully from park to urban activity.
In the end, this is an personal judgement, whether the periphery of Central Park should abruptly change to commercial activity(much like pedestrian plazas are surrounded by a wall of shops) or ease more gracefully from park to urban activity.
In the end, this is an personal judgement, whether the periphery of Central Park should abruptly change to commercial activity(much like pedestrian plazas are surrounded by a wall of shops) or ease more gracefully from park to urban activity.
In the end, this is an personal judgement, whether the periphery of Central Park should abruptly change to commercial activity(much like pedestrian plazas are surrounded by a wall of shops) or ease more gracefully from park to urban activity.
I’m not sure why terms like ‘radical’ and ‘abrupt’ are used here. Ciocolat wasn’t a radical change. Crepeville isn’t abrupt. Both seem like natural extensions of the publicly used area.
I’m not sure why terms like ‘radical’ and ‘abrupt’ are used here. Ciocolat wasn’t a radical change. Crepeville isn’t abrupt. Both seem like natural extensions of the publicly used area.
I’m not sure why terms like ‘radical’ and ‘abrupt’ are used here. Ciocolat wasn’t a radical change. Crepeville isn’t abrupt. Both seem like natural extensions of the publicly used area.
I’m not sure why terms like ‘radical’ and ‘abrupt’ are used here. Ciocolat wasn’t a radical change. Crepeville isn’t abrupt. Both seem like natural extensions of the publicly used area.
Mr. Shor:
Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.
For example, you say you read “carefully” the “Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision” and found, as you say, “…one sentence about retail.”
Here’s what I found:
Paragraph 3: “The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space.”
Paragraph 4: “We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
Paragraph 9: “If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial…structures in our neighborhoods as well.”
Didn’t read all that carefully now did you, Mr. Shor? I think you read just carefully enough to be able to make a dismissive comment and then get on with re-stating your $elf-centered $upport of retail.
Instead of hanging with your retail-developer cronies and rehashing the same tired old arguments over and over while spending all the rest of your time chasing the bottom line:
Take a few days off and reflect on the words the ONDNA actually wrote, perhaps a tiny portion of the reality of which they write might sink in:
“We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of [the]houses [along B Street] now approaching a century old.”
Usually, Mr. Shor, it is the narcissisist, by definition, who is last to realize the reality of their affliction. Try using a little of your imagination for a change: Really carefully read the ONDNA Guest Commentary and then get back to us with a real opinion.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor:
Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.
For example, you say you read “carefully” the “Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision” and found, as you say, “…one sentence about retail.”
Here’s what I found:
Paragraph 3: “The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space.”
Paragraph 4: “We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
Paragraph 9: “If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial…structures in our neighborhoods as well.”
Didn’t read all that carefully now did you, Mr. Shor? I think you read just carefully enough to be able to make a dismissive comment and then get on with re-stating your $elf-centered $upport of retail.
Instead of hanging with your retail-developer cronies and rehashing the same tired old arguments over and over while spending all the rest of your time chasing the bottom line:
Take a few days off and reflect on the words the ONDNA actually wrote, perhaps a tiny portion of the reality of which they write might sink in:
“We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of [the]houses [along B Street] now approaching a century old.”
Usually, Mr. Shor, it is the narcissisist, by definition, who is last to realize the reality of their affliction. Try using a little of your imagination for a change: Really carefully read the ONDNA Guest Commentary and then get back to us with a real opinion.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor:
Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.
For example, you say you read “carefully” the “Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision” and found, as you say, “…one sentence about retail.”
Here’s what I found:
Paragraph 3: “The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space.”
Paragraph 4: “We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
Paragraph 9: “If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial…structures in our neighborhoods as well.”
Didn’t read all that carefully now did you, Mr. Shor? I think you read just carefully enough to be able to make a dismissive comment and then get on with re-stating your $elf-centered $upport of retail.
Instead of hanging with your retail-developer cronies and rehashing the same tired old arguments over and over while spending all the rest of your time chasing the bottom line:
Take a few days off and reflect on the words the ONDNA actually wrote, perhaps a tiny portion of the reality of which they write might sink in:
“We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of [the]houses [along B Street] now approaching a century old.”
Usually, Mr. Shor, it is the narcissisist, by definition, who is last to realize the reality of their affliction. Try using a little of your imagination for a change: Really carefully read the ONDNA Guest Commentary and then get back to us with a real opinion.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor:
Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.
For example, you say you read “carefully” the “Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision” and found, as you say, “…one sentence about retail.”
Here’s what I found:
Paragraph 3: “The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space.”
Paragraph 4: “We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful.”
Paragraph 9: “If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial…structures in our neighborhoods as well.”
Didn’t read all that carefully now did you, Mr. Shor? I think you read just carefully enough to be able to make a dismissive comment and then get on with re-stating your $elf-centered $upport of retail.
Instead of hanging with your retail-developer cronies and rehashing the same tired old arguments over and over while spending all the rest of your time chasing the bottom line:
Take a few days off and reflect on the words the ONDNA actually wrote, perhaps a tiny portion of the reality of which they write might sink in:
“We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of [the]houses [along B Street] now approaching a century old.”
Usually, Mr. Shor, it is the narcissisist, by definition, who is last to realize the reality of their affliction. Try using a little of your imagination for a change: Really carefully read the ONDNA Guest Commentary and then get back to us with a real opinion.
–Brian Kenyon
“The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.”
For the record, under the Vision, there will be no retail and no cafes or restaurants on B Street, with the exception of the two properties at the corner of 3rd & B and the Baker’s Square site on 2nd & B. All of the older houses that now front the park will be demolished (with the possible exception of 311 B, which will be relocated to J Street), and they will be replaced by either townhouses or residential/office mixed use buildings. Unless the plan is changed by the city council, all of these new buildings will be 3 stories, except for on the property next to 337 B (the historic McDonald house), which will be limited to 2 stories.
Also, the HRMC voted unanimously to suggest to the city council that they amend the plan so that 301 B (Ciocolat) is afforded the same setbacks and other protections which will be afforded to 337 B. However, as things now stand, 301 B will not have those protections.
So while it might sound nice to have businesses like Crepeville across from the park, there will be none.
“The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.”
For the record, under the Vision, there will be no retail and no cafes or restaurants on B Street, with the exception of the two properties at the corner of 3rd & B and the Baker’s Square site on 2nd & B. All of the older houses that now front the park will be demolished (with the possible exception of 311 B, which will be relocated to J Street), and they will be replaced by either townhouses or residential/office mixed use buildings. Unless the plan is changed by the city council, all of these new buildings will be 3 stories, except for on the property next to 337 B (the historic McDonald house), which will be limited to 2 stories.
Also, the HRMC voted unanimously to suggest to the city council that they amend the plan so that 301 B (Ciocolat) is afforded the same setbacks and other protections which will be afforded to 337 B. However, as things now stand, 301 B will not have those protections.
So while it might sound nice to have businesses like Crepeville across from the park, there will be none.
“The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.”
For the record, under the Vision, there will be no retail and no cafes or restaurants on B Street, with the exception of the two properties at the corner of 3rd & B and the Baker’s Square site on 2nd & B. All of the older houses that now front the park will be demolished (with the possible exception of 311 B, which will be relocated to J Street), and they will be replaced by either townhouses or residential/office mixed use buildings. Unless the plan is changed by the city council, all of these new buildings will be 3 stories, except for on the property next to 337 B (the historic McDonald house), which will be limited to 2 stories.
Also, the HRMC voted unanimously to suggest to the city council that they amend the plan so that 301 B (Ciocolat) is afforded the same setbacks and other protections which will be afforded to 337 B. However, as things now stand, 301 B will not have those protections.
So while it might sound nice to have businesses like Crepeville across from the park, there will be none.
“The area that I believe has excellent retail potential is the section of B St. that faces Central Park.”
For the record, under the Vision, there will be no retail and no cafes or restaurants on B Street, with the exception of the two properties at the corner of 3rd & B and the Baker’s Square site on 2nd & B. All of the older houses that now front the park will be demolished (with the possible exception of 311 B, which will be relocated to J Street), and they will be replaced by either townhouses or residential/office mixed use buildings. Unless the plan is changed by the city council, all of these new buildings will be 3 stories, except for on the property next to 337 B (the historic McDonald house), which will be limited to 2 stories.
Also, the HRMC voted unanimously to suggest to the city council that they amend the plan so that 301 B (Ciocolat) is afforded the same setbacks and other protections which will be afforded to 337 B. However, as things now stand, 301 B will not have those protections.
So while it might sound nice to have businesses like Crepeville across from the park, there will be none.
“Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.”
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.
“Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.”
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.
“Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.”
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.
“Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.”
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.
You’re right: two sentences, not one, mention the retail component. Neither sentence addresses the value of such retail, which of course was my point.
I disregarded the issue of whether this project will somehow lead to commercial development in the other neighborhoods. Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing “high-density commercial” development in Old East or Old North Davis.
Now I’ll go admire my reflection in the lake.
You’re right: two sentences, not one, mention the retail component. Neither sentence addresses the value of such retail, which of course was my point.
I disregarded the issue of whether this project will somehow lead to commercial development in the other neighborhoods. Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing “high-density commercial” development in Old East or Old North Davis.
Now I’ll go admire my reflection in the lake.
You’re right: two sentences, not one, mention the retail component. Neither sentence addresses the value of such retail, which of course was my point.
I disregarded the issue of whether this project will somehow lead to commercial development in the other neighborhoods. Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing “high-density commercial” development in Old East or Old North Davis.
Now I’ll go admire my reflection in the lake.
You’re right: two sentences, not one, mention the retail component. Neither sentence addresses the value of such retail, which of course was my point.
I disregarded the issue of whether this project will somehow lead to commercial development in the other neighborhoods. Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing “high-density commercial” development in Old East or Old North Davis.
Now I’ll go admire my reflection in the lake.
be careful not to stay too long, don.
be careful not to stay too long, don.
be careful not to stay too long, don.
be careful not to stay too long, don.
that’s unfortunate, rich. a series of sidewalk cafes along the B street edge of the park would make the area a whole lot nicer and pedestrian than just a row of townhouses.
are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.
i’m still cranky about the shift from rentals to owner-occupied.
that’s unfortunate, rich. a series of sidewalk cafes along the B street edge of the park would make the area a whole lot nicer and pedestrian than just a row of townhouses.
are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.
i’m still cranky about the shift from rentals to owner-occupied.
that’s unfortunate, rich. a series of sidewalk cafes along the B street edge of the park would make the area a whole lot nicer and pedestrian than just a row of townhouses.
are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.
i’m still cranky about the shift from rentals to owner-occupied.
that’s unfortunate, rich. a series of sidewalk cafes along the B street edge of the park would make the area a whole lot nicer and pedestrian than just a row of townhouses.
are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.
i’m still cranky about the shift from rentals to owner-occupied.
Mr. Rifkin,
You quoted me, then wrote:
“‘Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.’
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.”
All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would “go away.”
Just out of curiosity, did you read the entire ONDNA Guest Commentary? They go into a bit of detail concerning how the high density/retail plan for B Street is unimaginative and narcissistic.
And could start a “domino effect” negatively affecting other historic Davis neighborhoods.
Read the Guest Commentary Mr. Rifkin, and when you are ready to discuss it objectively, rather than telling me, as if you were a petulant child, to “go away,” get back to us with any rational comments on the issues raised in the Guest Commentary you may have.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You quoted me, then wrote:
“‘Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.’
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.”
All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would “go away.”
Just out of curiosity, did you read the entire ONDNA Guest Commentary? They go into a bit of detail concerning how the high density/retail plan for B Street is unimaginative and narcissistic.
And could start a “domino effect” negatively affecting other historic Davis neighborhoods.
Read the Guest Commentary Mr. Rifkin, and when you are ready to discuss it objectively, rather than telling me, as if you were a petulant child, to “go away,” get back to us with any rational comments on the issues raised in the Guest Commentary you may have.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You quoted me, then wrote:
“‘Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.’
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.”
All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would “go away.”
Just out of curiosity, did you read the entire ONDNA Guest Commentary? They go into a bit of detail concerning how the high density/retail plan for B Street is unimaginative and narcissistic.
And could start a “domino effect” negatively affecting other historic Davis neighborhoods.
Read the Guest Commentary Mr. Rifkin, and when you are ready to discuss it objectively, rather than telling me, as if you were a petulant child, to “go away,” get back to us with any rational comments on the issues raised in the Guest Commentary you may have.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You quoted me, then wrote:
“‘Your response is classic narcissisism, i.e., little external reality seems to penetrate your outlook or interests.’
Brian, as usual, your personal attacks are off point and thoughtless. If you don’t have the brainpower to come up with anything rational or reasonable to say, then go away.”
All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would “go away.”
Just out of curiosity, did you read the entire ONDNA Guest Commentary? They go into a bit of detail concerning how the high density/retail plan for B Street is unimaginative and narcissistic.
And could start a “domino effect” negatively affecting other historic Davis neighborhoods.
Read the Guest Commentary Mr. Rifkin, and when you are ready to discuss it objectively, rather than telling me, as if you were a petulant child, to “go away,” get back to us with any rational comments on the issues raised in the Guest Commentary you may have.
–Brian Kenyon
Just curious, Brian, are you diagnosing us as just having narcissistic traits, or narcissistic personalities, or full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder? And what are your credentials for doing so? Is our narcissism healthy, or pathological?
Or have you just read a pop-psych book on the subject, and decided to sophomorically apply the term to anyone who disagrees with you?
Just curious, Brian, are you diagnosing us as just having narcissistic traits, or narcissistic personalities, or full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder? And what are your credentials for doing so? Is our narcissism healthy, or pathological?
Or have you just read a pop-psych book on the subject, and decided to sophomorically apply the term to anyone who disagrees with you?
Just curious, Brian, are you diagnosing us as just having narcissistic traits, or narcissistic personalities, or full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder? And what are your credentials for doing so? Is our narcissism healthy, or pathological?
Or have you just read a pop-psych book on the subject, and decided to sophomorically apply the term to anyone who disagrees with you?
Just curious, Brian, are you diagnosing us as just having narcissistic traits, or narcissistic personalities, or full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder? And what are your credentials for doing so? Is our narcissism healthy, or pathological?
Or have you just read a pop-psych book on the subject, and decided to sophomorically apply the term to anyone who disagrees with you?
With regard to the specifics of the ONDNA letter.
The point to emphasize to the council is the impact of parking and traffic issues on the nearby neighborhoods. The in lieu parking fees don’t solve the problem, they just shift it. The staff recommendations provide rationale for this approach, so rebutting that would be important.
The point was made (somewhere) that providing more parking on site would require the higher roof lines of the commercial/retail projects. So a compromise would involve accepting at least the 38′ roof the planning commission recommended for some projects. The staff report rejects that, but I can see how council members might consider it a way of balancing conflicting interests.
The commentary states that development “will occur in a piecemeal fashion” damaging the context of the historical homes. But that is the point of this process: one part of it is to identify the historic resources and preserve them to the greatest degree possible. Again, compromise in this case involves finding ways to achieve goals which are sometimes in conflict: more housing stock, owner-occupied buildings, commercial/retail enhancement, historic preservation, and ambience.
The ONDNA letter describes the process used to oversee development in that neighborhood, and there is no question it is an excellent example of stewardship achieving the goals of the residents there. But it seems there is an effort to impose that same process here, even though the majority of the property owners prefer a different outcome. 3rd and B Street owners are not necessarily seeking the same type of neighborhood as Old North Davis. I don’t think anyone is asking to be rewarded for neglecting their property. Some of the owners have specific proposals that they believe would make better use of the land than the current structures, and that they feel would enhance the neighborhood and community.
I understand that nearby neighborhoods may feel threatened by this change. But ONDNA is a strong and vigilant neighborhood association. Any developer who proposes commercial projects or anything in conflict with that neighborhood’s guidelines is up against different goals and apparently unified opposition. At 3rd and B, it seems most of the opposition is not coming from the owners.
Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.
The nature of compromise is that nobody is completely happy with the outcome. “Scrapping the 3rd and B Street vision” rejects the goals of other stakeholders entirely and throws out 2+ years of work by owners, residents, and others. Reading the EIR, it is clear that the commissions have suggested changes and the staff recommendations reflect some of those. The council can strengthen those, overriding staff recommendations. But the commentary doesn’t indicate any willingness to compromise.
With regard to the specifics of the ONDNA letter.
The point to emphasize to the council is the impact of parking and traffic issues on the nearby neighborhoods. The in lieu parking fees don’t solve the problem, they just shift it. The staff recommendations provide rationale for this approach, so rebutting that would be important.
The point was made (somewhere) that providing more parking on site would require the higher roof lines of the commercial/retail projects. So a compromise would involve accepting at least the 38′ roof the planning commission recommended for some projects. The staff report rejects that, but I can see how council members might consider it a way of balancing conflicting interests.
The commentary states that development “will occur in a piecemeal fashion” damaging the context of the historical homes. But that is the point of this process: one part of it is to identify the historic resources and preserve them to the greatest degree possible. Again, compromise in this case involves finding ways to achieve goals which are sometimes in conflict: more housing stock, owner-occupied buildings, commercial/retail enhancement, historic preservation, and ambience.
The ONDNA letter describes the process used to oversee development in that neighborhood, and there is no question it is an excellent example of stewardship achieving the goals of the residents there. But it seems there is an effort to impose that same process here, even though the majority of the property owners prefer a different outcome. 3rd and B Street owners are not necessarily seeking the same type of neighborhood as Old North Davis. I don’t think anyone is asking to be rewarded for neglecting their property. Some of the owners have specific proposals that they believe would make better use of the land than the current structures, and that they feel would enhance the neighborhood and community.
I understand that nearby neighborhoods may feel threatened by this change. But ONDNA is a strong and vigilant neighborhood association. Any developer who proposes commercial projects or anything in conflict with that neighborhood’s guidelines is up against different goals and apparently unified opposition. At 3rd and B, it seems most of the opposition is not coming from the owners.
Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.
The nature of compromise is that nobody is completely happy with the outcome. “Scrapping the 3rd and B Street vision” rejects the goals of other stakeholders entirely and throws out 2+ years of work by owners, residents, and others. Reading the EIR, it is clear that the commissions have suggested changes and the staff recommendations reflect some of those. The council can strengthen those, overriding staff recommendations. But the commentary doesn’t indicate any willingness to compromise.
With regard to the specifics of the ONDNA letter.
The point to emphasize to the council is the impact of parking and traffic issues on the nearby neighborhoods. The in lieu parking fees don’t solve the problem, they just shift it. The staff recommendations provide rationale for this approach, so rebutting that would be important.
The point was made (somewhere) that providing more parking on site would require the higher roof lines of the commercial/retail projects. So a compromise would involve accepting at least the 38′ roof the planning commission recommended for some projects. The staff report rejects that, but I can see how council members might consider it a way of balancing conflicting interests.
The commentary states that development “will occur in a piecemeal fashion” damaging the context of the historical homes. But that is the point of this process: one part of it is to identify the historic resources and preserve them to the greatest degree possible. Again, compromise in this case involves finding ways to achieve goals which are sometimes in conflict: more housing stock, owner-occupied buildings, commercial/retail enhancement, historic preservation, and ambience.
The ONDNA letter describes the process used to oversee development in that neighborhood, and there is no question it is an excellent example of stewardship achieving the goals of the residents there. But it seems there is an effort to impose that same process here, even though the majority of the property owners prefer a different outcome. 3rd and B Street owners are not necessarily seeking the same type of neighborhood as Old North Davis. I don’t think anyone is asking to be rewarded for neglecting their property. Some of the owners have specific proposals that they believe would make better use of the land than the current structures, and that they feel would enhance the neighborhood and community.
I understand that nearby neighborhoods may feel threatened by this change. But ONDNA is a strong and vigilant neighborhood association. Any developer who proposes commercial projects or anything in conflict with that neighborhood’s guidelines is up against different goals and apparently unified opposition. At 3rd and B, it seems most of the opposition is not coming from the owners.
Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.
The nature of compromise is that nobody is completely happy with the outcome. “Scrapping the 3rd and B Street vision” rejects the goals of other stakeholders entirely and throws out 2+ years of work by owners, residents, and others. Reading the EIR, it is clear that the commissions have suggested changes and the staff recommendations reflect some of those. The council can strengthen those, overriding staff recommendations. But the commentary doesn’t indicate any willingness to compromise.
With regard to the specifics of the ONDNA letter.
The point to emphasize to the council is the impact of parking and traffic issues on the nearby neighborhoods. The in lieu parking fees don’t solve the problem, they just shift it. The staff recommendations provide rationale for this approach, so rebutting that would be important.
The point was made (somewhere) that providing more parking on site would require the higher roof lines of the commercial/retail projects. So a compromise would involve accepting at least the 38′ roof the planning commission recommended for some projects. The staff report rejects that, but I can see how council members might consider it a way of balancing conflicting interests.
The commentary states that development “will occur in a piecemeal fashion” damaging the context of the historical homes. But that is the point of this process: one part of it is to identify the historic resources and preserve them to the greatest degree possible. Again, compromise in this case involves finding ways to achieve goals which are sometimes in conflict: more housing stock, owner-occupied buildings, commercial/retail enhancement, historic preservation, and ambience.
The ONDNA letter describes the process used to oversee development in that neighborhood, and there is no question it is an excellent example of stewardship achieving the goals of the residents there. But it seems there is an effort to impose that same process here, even though the majority of the property owners prefer a different outcome. 3rd and B Street owners are not necessarily seeking the same type of neighborhood as Old North Davis. I don’t think anyone is asking to be rewarded for neglecting their property. Some of the owners have specific proposals that they believe would make better use of the land than the current structures, and that they feel would enhance the neighborhood and community.
I understand that nearby neighborhoods may feel threatened by this change. But ONDNA is a strong and vigilant neighborhood association. Any developer who proposes commercial projects or anything in conflict with that neighborhood’s guidelines is up against different goals and apparently unified opposition. At 3rd and B, it seems most of the opposition is not coming from the owners.
Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.
The nature of compromise is that nobody is completely happy with the outcome. “Scrapping the 3rd and B Street vision” rejects the goals of other stakeholders entirely and throws out 2+ years of work by owners, residents, and others. Reading the EIR, it is clear that the commissions have suggested changes and the staff recommendations reflect some of those. The council can strengthen those, overriding staff recommendations. But the commentary doesn’t indicate any willingness to compromise.
“Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.”
Yes, the facade of the Davis Food Co-op won Ogrydziak some awards from the architectural community–but look at it. Built of girders bearing a remarkable resemblance to giant Tinker-Toys in their configuration, a sheetrock facade with a hole in it, mysterious free-standing concrete pillars that support nothing (leftover from a concept never executed?)…and costing co-op members millions. That money could have gone toward significantly lowering food prices inside the coop…
–Brian Kenyon
“Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.”
Yes, the facade of the Davis Food Co-op won Ogrydziak some awards from the architectural community–but look at it. Built of girders bearing a remarkable resemblance to giant Tinker-Toys in their configuration, a sheetrock facade with a hole in it, mysterious free-standing concrete pillars that support nothing (leftover from a concept never executed?)…and costing co-op members millions. That money could have gone toward significantly lowering food prices inside the coop…
–Brian Kenyon
“Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.”
Yes, the facade of the Davis Food Co-op won Ogrydziak some awards from the architectural community–but look at it. Built of girders bearing a remarkable resemblance to giant Tinker-Toys in their configuration, a sheetrock facade with a hole in it, mysterious free-standing concrete pillars that support nothing (leftover from a concept never executed?)…and costing co-op members millions. That money could have gone toward significantly lowering food prices inside the coop…
–Brian Kenyon
“Characterizing the owners at 3rd and B as ‘narcissistic and unimaginative’ is pretty dismissive, considering one of them is an award-winning architect with a substantial body of work in Davis.”
Yes, the facade of the Davis Food Co-op won Ogrydziak some awards from the architectural community–but look at it. Built of girders bearing a remarkable resemblance to giant Tinker-Toys in their configuration, a sheetrock facade with a hole in it, mysterious free-standing concrete pillars that support nothing (leftover from a concept never executed?)…and costing co-op members millions. That money could have gone toward significantly lowering food prices inside the coop…
–Brian Kenyon
Having an architect as a major promoter of the “vision” is a lot like the product that we see when a movie is written, acted in and directed by the same person. It very often suffers from creative self-indulgence.
Having an architect as a major promoter of the “vision” is a lot like the product that we see when a movie is written, acted in and directed by the same person. It very often suffers from creative self-indulgence.
Having an architect as a major promoter of the “vision” is a lot like the product that we see when a movie is written, acted in and directed by the same person. It very often suffers from creative self-indulgence.
Having an architect as a major promoter of the “vision” is a lot like the product that we see when a movie is written, acted in and directed by the same person. It very often suffers from creative self-indulgence.
She’s won dozens of awards and done hundreds of projects. Just check out her web site at oarch.com.
But she is no more or less a participant in the visioning process than the other owners, residents, commissions, and community members.
She’s won dozens of awards and done hundreds of projects. Just check out her web site at oarch.com.
But she is no more or less a participant in the visioning process than the other owners, residents, commissions, and community members.
She’s won dozens of awards and done hundreds of projects. Just check out her web site at oarch.com.
But she is no more or less a participant in the visioning process than the other owners, residents, commissions, and community members.
She’s won dozens of awards and done hundreds of projects. Just check out her web site at oarch.com.
But she is no more or less a participant in the visioning process than the other owners, residents, commissions, and community members.
“…are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.”
It is my understanding that the Ogrydziak’s would like to demolish their buildings and construct something new.
For what it’s worth, I like the bluish-purple house. And while the addition is not terribly exciting, I think its distinction from the original building makes good sense — it’s clear that it is there for a different purpose. That is, the addition is the work space; the home is the living space.
Maria didn’t want the addition mimic the style of the original building, as that would be a lie in two respects: it would give a false impression as to the size and scale of the 1920s house; and it would fail to make it clear that the new part is used quite differently than the old.
“All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would go away.”
You seem to need some help. There are a lot of psychiatric services in town. Please turn to one of them before you jump.
“…are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.”
It is my understanding that the Ogrydziak’s would like to demolish their buildings and construct something new.
For what it’s worth, I like the bluish-purple house. And while the addition is not terribly exciting, I think its distinction from the original building makes good sense — it’s clear that it is there for a different purpose. That is, the addition is the work space; the home is the living space.
Maria didn’t want the addition mimic the style of the original building, as that would be a lie in two respects: it would give a false impression as to the size and scale of the 1920s house; and it would fail to make it clear that the new part is used quite differently than the old.
“All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would go away.”
You seem to need some help. There are a lot of psychiatric services in town. Please turn to one of them before you jump.
“…are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.”
It is my understanding that the Ogrydziak’s would like to demolish their buildings and construct something new.
For what it’s worth, I like the bluish-purple house. And while the addition is not terribly exciting, I think its distinction from the original building makes good sense — it’s clear that it is there for a different purpose. That is, the addition is the work space; the home is the living space.
Maria didn’t want the addition mimic the style of the original building, as that would be a lie in two respects: it would give a false impression as to the size and scale of the 1920s house; and it would fail to make it clear that the new part is used quite differently than the old.
“All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would go away.”
You seem to need some help. There are a lot of psychiatric services in town. Please turn to one of them before you jump.
“…are they thinking of knocking down the ogrydziak building? that purple-and-grey eyesore is about the only one of those bungalows i’d be happy to see go.”
It is my understanding that the Ogrydziak’s would like to demolish their buildings and construct something new.
For what it’s worth, I like the bluish-purple house. And while the addition is not terribly exciting, I think its distinction from the original building makes good sense — it’s clear that it is there for a different purpose. That is, the addition is the work space; the home is the living space.
Maria didn’t want the addition mimic the style of the original building, as that would be a lie in two respects: it would give a false impression as to the size and scale of the 1920s house; and it would fail to make it clear that the new part is used quite differently than the old.
“All I can say, Mr. Rifkin, is you wrote your comment like a true narcissist…when reality becomes a “little too real,” the narcissist simply wishes it would go away.”
You seem to need some help. There are a lot of psychiatric services in town. Please turn to one of them before you jump.
Mr. Rifkin,
You seem to insist on portraying yourself as an example of the fact that narcissists aren’t in need of psychiatric services. Narcissists function quite well in social settings, especially those controlled by other narcissists,
say among Establishment circles in Davis, or the architectural community now dictating the design of the buildings built around the Core Area (the “the ogrydziak building…that purple-and-grey eyesore,” for example) the past few years in order to line the pockets of narcissistic developers.
Mr. Shor,
Here is the mention in context of “Narcissism” I find in the ONDNA Guest Commentary. They are discussing the physical manifestations created by a typical narcissitic personality:
“…we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
If you were to take a few minutes to read this Commentary, maybe a little reality will sink in and you’ll see the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You seem to insist on portraying yourself as an example of the fact that narcissists aren’t in need of psychiatric services. Narcissists function quite well in social settings, especially those controlled by other narcissists,
say among Establishment circles in Davis, or the architectural community now dictating the design of the buildings built around the Core Area (the “the ogrydziak building…that purple-and-grey eyesore,” for example) the past few years in order to line the pockets of narcissistic developers.
Mr. Shor,
Here is the mention in context of “Narcissism” I find in the ONDNA Guest Commentary. They are discussing the physical manifestations created by a typical narcissitic personality:
“…we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
If you were to take a few minutes to read this Commentary, maybe a little reality will sink in and you’ll see the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You seem to insist on portraying yourself as an example of the fact that narcissists aren’t in need of psychiatric services. Narcissists function quite well in social settings, especially those controlled by other narcissists,
say among Establishment circles in Davis, or the architectural community now dictating the design of the buildings built around the Core Area (the “the ogrydziak building…that purple-and-grey eyesore,” for example) the past few years in order to line the pockets of narcissistic developers.
Mr. Shor,
Here is the mention in context of “Narcissism” I find in the ONDNA Guest Commentary. They are discussing the physical manifestations created by a typical narcissitic personality:
“…we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
If you were to take a few minutes to read this Commentary, maybe a little reality will sink in and you’ll see the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin,
You seem to insist on portraying yourself as an example of the fact that narcissists aren’t in need of psychiatric services. Narcissists function quite well in social settings, especially those controlled by other narcissists,
say among Establishment circles in Davis, or the architectural community now dictating the design of the buildings built around the Core Area (the “the ogrydziak building…that purple-and-grey eyesore,” for example) the past few years in order to line the pockets of narcissistic developers.
Mr. Shor,
Here is the mention in context of “Narcissism” I find in the ONDNA Guest Commentary. They are discussing the physical manifestations created by a typical narcissitic personality:
“…we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
If you were to take a few minutes to read this Commentary, maybe a little reality will sink in and you’ll see the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.
–Brian Kenyon
I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.
I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.
I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.
I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.
Here we are given the opportunity to test the theory that if a lie is repeated enough times it will become the truth.
Here we are given the opportunity to test the theory that if a lie is repeated enough times it will become the truth.
Here we are given the opportunity to test the theory that if a lie is repeated enough times it will become the truth.
Here we are given the opportunity to test the theory that if a lie is repeated enough times it will become the truth.
We can also highlight a fairly benign statement, that being…
Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
…where the authors use the softening term “seems” and applied to noone in particular, is then misinterpreted and used as a factual psychological diagnosis as against those who disagree with the guest commentary.
Clever, but completely transparent.
We can also highlight a fairly benign statement, that being…
Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
…where the authors use the softening term “seems” and applied to noone in particular, is then misinterpreted and used as a factual psychological diagnosis as against those who disagree with the guest commentary.
Clever, but completely transparent.
We can also highlight a fairly benign statement, that being…
Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
…where the authors use the softening term “seems” and applied to noone in particular, is then misinterpreted and used as a factual psychological diagnosis as against those who disagree with the guest commentary.
Clever, but completely transparent.
We can also highlight a fairly benign statement, that being…
Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us.”
…where the authors use the softening term “seems” and applied to noone in particular, is then misinterpreted and used as a factual psychological diagnosis as against those who disagree with the guest commentary.
Clever, but completely transparent.
“I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.”
Don, I think the person in question was busy studying his reflection in the North Davis pond, thus accounting for his not noticing your reply.
“I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.”
Don, I think the person in question was busy studying his reflection in the North Davis pond, thus accounting for his not noticing your reply.
“I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.”
Don, I think the person in question was busy studying his reflection in the North Davis pond, thus accounting for his not noticing your reply.
“I read the commentary, Brian, and I replied to it. Maybe you didn’t notice.”
Don, I think the person in question was busy studying his reflection in the North Davis pond, thus accounting for his not noticing your reply.
“the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.”
Mr. Shor and Mr. Rifkin:
The builders of the bungalows along B Street were thinking of the future, even while making a buck, being both self-interested and contributors to the greater good of the community. A balance evident in the integration of the architecture of the bungalows with their natural surroundings.
–Brian Kenyon
“the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.”
Mr. Shor and Mr. Rifkin:
The builders of the bungalows along B Street were thinking of the future, even while making a buck, being both self-interested and contributors to the greater good of the community. A balance evident in the integration of the architecture of the bungalows with their natural surroundings.
–Brian Kenyon
“the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.”
Mr. Shor and Mr. Rifkin:
The builders of the bungalows along B Street were thinking of the future, even while making a buck, being both self-interested and contributors to the greater good of the community. A balance evident in the integration of the architecture of the bungalows with their natural surroundings.
–Brian Kenyon
“the integrity of the neighborhood as it was built and intended to be for future generations…a most non-narcissitic endeavor.”
Mr. Shor and Mr. Rifkin:
The builders of the bungalows along B Street were thinking of the future, even while making a buck, being both self-interested and contributors to the greater good of the community. A balance evident in the integration of the architecture of the bungalows with their natural surroundings.
–Brian Kenyon