There is a fascinating piece in the Public CEO this week that looks at the war between city leaders and city dwellers on densification. “City Leaders Are in Love with Density but Most City Dwellers Disagree” takes an international view of densification efforts, but also presents some interesting nuggets for us to digest as well, and that should become part of the public discourse and discussion.
Joel Kotkin, a Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register, writes of the “growing disconnect between people and planners,” which he says “is illustrated by the oft-ignored fact that around the world the great majority of growth continues to occur on the suburban and exurban frontier, including the fringes of 23 out of 28 of the world’s megacities.”
He notes, “This is not what you read regularly in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Young reporters, virtually all of whom live in dense, expensive places like New York or Washington, believe the world is the one they know first-hand, the one in which they and their friends reside.”
Instead, “Most Americans are not young, highly educated Manhattan residents. Many downtown areas may have experienced a substantial boost in numbers over the last decade, but this accounted for less than 1 percent of the 27 million in population growth experienced by the nation between 2000 and 2010.”
“These interests speak about cities as if they were giant Lego constructions to be toyed with at the whim of planners or developers,” Mr. Kotkin writes. “But they neglect the things that matter to people in their daily lives: privacy, room to raise children, the desire for a backyard, decent schools, and safe streets. Roughly four in five home buyers, according to a 2011 study conducted by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America, for example, prefer a single-family home, something that is anathema to the densifiers.”
Joel Kotkin continues, noting that densification has received strong support from the Obama administration through their work at HUD, the EPA, and other agencies. As the same time, “Densifiers also claim their work makes cities richer, yet the nation’s greatest wealth-creator – Silicon Valley – is essentially suburban, and the world’s wealthiest metropolitan area – greater Hartford, Connecticut – is largely a collection of bucolic towns and suburbs with a density nearly as low as Atlanta’s.”
The urban cores are home to unemployment rates far higher than their suburban counterparts, and eighty percent of the growth in urban population over the last decade came from people below the poverty line, compared to one third in the suburbs.
He adds, “Yet rather than re-think density, planners and powerful urban land interests continue to force ever higher-density development down the throats of urban dwellers. In the already pricey San Francisco Bay Area, for example, municipal planners have embraced what is known as a “pack and stack” strategy that will essentially prohibit construction of all but the most expensive single-family homes, prompting one Bay Area blogger to charge that ‘suburb hating is anti-child,’ because it seeks to undermine single-family neighborhoods.”
This provides us with an interesting segue back to Davis, because it was less than a month ago that we had the abortive debate over the Mission Residence. Abortive because the discussion was effectively cut off by the council’s passage of the project, over the heavy objections from the neighbors.
What makes this an interesting discussion is that the neighbors have been portrayed as NIMBY’s here. This despite the fact that about seven years ago they actually engaged in a very long and complex visioning process where they agreed to densify their own neighborhood with certain caveats.
The problem with Mission Residence is that this violated their agreement and still they would have been willing to compromise from what they had agreed on, but not go as far as the developer had wished to go.
We make no bones about the fact that this is going to undermine single-family neighborhood living – because this complex is specifically designed to be for 55 years or older. And just for kicks, it will have owner-occupancy requirements meant to prevent students from living there, as well.
Davis, of course, is moving toward a hybrid of urban and suburban living, with a move to densify the core of town with high-density housing – and not just in the B Street corridor area, but also at potential infill spots at PG&E and on the city-owned Fifth Street property between L St and Covell.
At the same time, as the peripheral areas of town, already built with large single-family dwellings that will be out of range for most younger families, it is not clear where the next generation of families will live in Davis.
Densification surely has its place, so long as it is designed with the input of neighbors. We have this notion that the neighbors are opposed to all new development, but that was not the case here. The neighbors were willing to go a long way toward densification through the process. It was only when the parameters set forth in that process were violated that they objected.
Joel Kotkin writes, “Rather than concocting sophisticated odes to misery, perhaps we might consider a different approach to urban growth. Perhaps we factor in what exactly we are inflicting on people with “pack and stack” strategies.”
He notes that while planners often confuse density with community, researchers found “that for every 10 percent drop in population density, the likelihood of people talking to their neighbors once a week goes up 10 percent, regardless of race, income, education, marital status, or age. In 2009, Pew recently issued a report that found suburbanites to be the group far more engaged with their communities than those living in core cities.”
Mr. Kotkin concludes: “The primary goal of a city should not be to make wealthy landlords and construction companies ever richer, or politicians more powerful. Instead, we should look for alternatives that conform to human needs and desires, particularly those of families. Urbanism should not be defined by the egos of planners, architects, politicians, or the über-rich, who can cherry-pick the best locales in gigantic cities. Urbanism should be driven above all by what works best for the most people.”
Clearly there are important uses for high-density housing, particularly if we are talking about student housing, but as we think of the future of our community, substituting peripheral development for high-density infill might not be the recipe that we think it is for bringing in young families.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Strange use of abortive.
We are not urban we are suburban.
Densification is great on paper but the reality is that its not good for families with children. As i like to say its great for the people who don’t live in it because they get to maintain their own space while crowding others into smaller areas.
As we have seen the anti-growth people find its difficult to defend doing nothing. i think densification is the defacto answer to stopping peripheral growth. I too thought the building in the picture was too big just as I though the three story buildings across from Central Park but if Davis refuses to go out it only leaves going up. It was gratifying to see the most anti-growth members of the community, two of whom are former council members, turn out to complain about the kind of project their policies have resulted in creating when such a project came to their own neighborhood. As they say the chickens came home to roost.
My immigrant grandparents lived in densely urban Chicago. Their children all moved to the suburbs.
Toad: there is a balance to be struck.
However, whether they live downtown or at the far reaches of North Star, my personal opinion is that Davis and its geographic territory has just about reached its environmental carrying capacity. So yes, I am for tight control of peripheral sprawl, but I am also not a big booster of highly densifying any particular area in town. I just dont think we need to grow our population by much.
“Davis and its geographic territory has just about reached its environmental carrying capacity. “
based on what metric?
Michael Harrington: “I just dont think we need to grow our population by much.”
Ah…the old ‘I have mine and I don’t want anyone else to spoil it’ argument.
The population of Davis will need to continue to grow right along with the population growth of the region. We should be planning for that growth, not shoving our heads in the sand and claiming we don’t have any more room.
[quote]Ah…the old ‘I have mine and I don’t want anyone else to spoil it’ argument. [/quote] Reminds me of anti-growth sign I saw a couple of years ago on the front lawn of a nearly brand spanking new home in Wildhorse.
“Davis and its geographic territory has just about reached its environmental carrying capacity”
Clearly the dumbest thing you have ever said. There is nowhere in the world farther below its carrying capacity than here. We can grow more food than we could ever consume. You even have argued we don’t need a new water system that we have adequate supplies. So on what basis can you make such a claim? This is just nimby nonsense. What is most disturbing is your ability to make such a remark without being embarrassed in doing so.
“Davis, of course, is moving toward a hybrid of urban and suburban living, with a move to densify the core of town with high-density housing – and not just in the B Street corridor area, but also at potential infill spots at PG&E and on the city-owned Fifth Street property between L St and Covell.”
I wouldn’t call Davis “urban,” even if the core gets densified with ugly Mission Residences throughout. With the city offering STEAC a 30-year lease and PG&E starting new construction last week, I can’t imagine either property being offered up for any alternative uses in our lifetimes.
The city’s actions on the 50-foot-high monstrosity pictured above was failure of our planning and zoning process. The mad rush to approve waivers to the B Street plan that had public input seven years ago was a breach of faith with the neighborhood. Once neighbors and others saw the three buildings go up across from the park, it’s not surprising that even-taller buildings are being opposed.
After seeing the projects that pass for “densification”–a lot here, a lot there where one-story homes get replaced with two- or three-story buildings that abuse the neighborhood–it’s obvious that this isn’t really a useful alternative to peripheral development.
I’ve concluded that “densification” in Davis is just a token, a slogan to suggest we have a effective way to avoid growing out. It’s really a no-growth strategy masquerading as a legitimate alternative. Michael, to his credit, puts the prevailing philosophy into perfect words.
You mean Michael to his discredit …
Mike’s view represents Davis’ paradigm of the past. A view fully discredited by the article I linked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
Fear of change. It is endemic in humans. The difference is Davis’s direct democracy approach to public policy and economic development allows it to manifest into blocking power. We are not the only little California city impacted by this malady, but we are statistically much more impacted than all others.
I am familiar with numerous studies on leadership and entrepreneurialism that pegs 90% of people lacking capability to visualize a future state without a lot of help. And without this ability to visualize a future state, people would be naturally fearful of change… because we naturally fear what we cannot see.
Medwoman’s posts on the subject of growth… where she continues to ask others to provide her a definitive population boundary… are common indicators of someone lacking vision capability and fearful – or at least apprehensive – of change. At one point she even commented that she would prefer we turn back the clock to a time when Davis was even smaller… and indication that she is still struggling accepting change that has already occurred.
How to test this theory of lack of visioning capability?
Simply ask people to list the negative impacts they are attributing to the growth and economic development projects they oppose.
They generally cannot. Since they cannot visualize the future state, they cannot inventory negative impacts. They can only speak in broad generalities and make dubious and improvable claims to calm their fears. For example, they “want to protect the scope and scale of Davis.” This type of claim is nebulous and abstract to the point of being useless.
What is fascinating to me… we have a university that is hell bent on growth and change. The constituents of this university have little power to block that change. The plans for the university’s growth and change are pushed by its leaders. Those leaders generally comprise the 10% of people that have visioning capability.
But then move to city planning and the inmates are running the asylum.
Hence we end up being the most dense comparable little city in California. We have the fewest businesses and the lowest sales tax revenue per capita. And we still have people blocking growth and development because of their fear of change. It is time to take the keys away and demand that our leaders make decisions as they should.
Oh, almost forgot: put Cannery Project on the ballot!
Nothing between you and 6000 valid signatures from doing so Mike.
Michael wrote:
> my personal opinion is that Davis and its geographic
> territory has just about reached its environmental
> carrying capacity.
Davis/El Macero has ~6,000 people per sq. mile
San Francisco has ~18,000 people per sq. mile
Manhattan has ~47,000 people per sq. mile
Michael, if and when the time comes for the Cannery referendum let us all know so I can get paperwork because I have many neighbors who will happily sign.
Frankly wrote:
> And we still have people blocking growth and
> development because of their fear of change.
I’m sure that there are “some” people in town that “fear change”, but almost everyone I know that votes against growth is motivated by an “understanding of supply and demand” (and how a high demand and low supply keeps the value of their homes twice as high as in neighboring towns).
“I have many neighbors who will happily sign.”
will your neighbors still sign if you know you’re doing whitcombe’s bidding?
if [b]they [/b]know [b]they’re[/b] doing whitcombe’s bidding
sorry about that
[quote]and how a high demand and low supply keeps the value of their homes twice as high as in neighboring towns[/quote]
Oh, you mean those neighboring towns that look like crap because the pro growthers got their way there? Another way to look at it is Davis real estate is higher than our neighbors because so far we’ve done the right thing and kept our community is very desirable.
agree on that point
[i]Oh, you mean those neighboring towns that look like crap[/i]
Pick a comparable California city that you think looks like crap.
I do agree that there are people in this town blocking residential development to keep their property values high, but business development?
[i]my personal opinion is that Davis and its geographic territory has just about reached its environmental carrying capacity.[/i]
Sorry, but what the hell does this mean?
Anyone, anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone?
The argument repeatedly is made by at least one knowledgeable poster that the good soil around Davis (and upon which the town now sits) somehow has become a geographic barrier to additional development. I presume the the theory of the “geographic territory (and) its environmental carrying capacity” builds on this concept of geographic limitations.
JS – That is the ONE and ONLY argument that these no-mos and slow-mos can come up with.
And like I have written, nobody loves farmland that much.
And they lack other justifications other than broad and sweeping emotives and generalizations.
Hence my point that they just fear change.
Or, they are protecting their artificially high residential property values. But even this has elements of fear connected to it, and it does not jibe with the opposition of a business park development.
I don’t think it’s fear, Frankly, but love–an understandable appreciation and nostalgia for the way things used to be. A positive, but futile, way to think that the future will evolve.
Many no-mo and slow-mo posters have identified Folsom as the fear point for Davis becoming if we allow a business park.
Here is a list of Folsom residential neighborhoods.
Do any of you want to take a crack at telling us which of these are crappy places to live?
– American River Canyon
– Briggs Ranch
– Broadstone
– Central Folsom
– Empire Ranch
– Historic Folsom
– Lexington Hills
– Natoma Station
– The Parkway
– Prairie Oaks
– Willow Creek
– Willow Springs
I’m not advocating that Davis develop like Folsom. We are so far from that model it would take 30-40 years of aggressive business and residential development before we would even come close. But, since Folsom has been identified as the poster child for what the no-mos and slow-mos say they fear, it would be good to hear what they consider the negatives.
My brother and his family have lived in Folsom for over 20 years. They now live in The Parkway. That development is surrounded on two sides by a wildlife and nature preservation with walking and bike paths surrounding it. People living there reading posts by the Davis no-mos and slow-mos think Davis is filled with a bunch of freaky weird snobs that apparently don’t leave their city.
I look at it more as when I drive through West Sac and Natomas and sighing to myself that I’m glad Davis doesn’t look like that.
[i]I don’t think it’s fear, Frankly, but love–an understandable appreciation and nostalgia for the way things used to be. A positive, but futile, way to think that the future will evolve.[/i]
Ok JS, fair enough. But many of them claim to be progressives. So, how does that jibe?
Come on GI, you think Davis is at risk of looking like Natomas? Really?
I asked for comparable cities. These two are not.
I know one thing about West Sac and Natomas that would be concerning is the demographics. Specifically the higher percent of people stuck in lower socioeconomic circumstances and higher percentage of minorities. Both of these demographic changes would likely bring on more crime to Davis.
But again, Davis is not at risk of having any of those big Demographic shifts. And, if we want to maintain a higher percentage of affluent people that tends to keep crime low, we should be supporting hi-tech business parks and some percentage of new single family home development.
I do support bringing in hi-tech business, I’ve posted that many times. We have a great location that’s already zoned for business at the Cannery.
GI – it sounds like you don’t believe the ConAgra folks and Robb White and others that tell us that this is not a good location for a larger business park than is proposed.
You sill have not succinctly explained, IMO, why you don’t support the Mace 391 business park. Why one and not the other?
“Specifically the higher percent of people stuck in lower socioeconomic circumstances and higher percentage of minorities. Both of these demographic changes would likely bring on more crime to Davis. “
You are wrong about the crime but right about the fear of the crime. There is a race and class element to being anti-growth. There is also a protect housing values, preserve all farmland and fear of overpopulation. Put it together and what have you got? The desire for measure J to serve as a moat. Underneath it all the Progressives have some pretty ugly values.
Whitcomb’s bidding?
What’s putting Cannery out to a citywide vote got to do with Whitcomb’s bidding?
Let the people vote!! This is about direct democracy, not what is good for one developer or another.
But obviously, if I were the checkbook at Con Agra back East and the one paying the local rep, it’d be obvious to me that I would be fighting the “local developers” all the way on this one because Con Agra has convinced at least 3 CC members to give them a sweet 16 deal that no one else in town is getting. Of course the local crowd is going to go after Con Agra; of course they will ensure it’s on the ballot. None of this is rocket science.
If any of you posters our there, or Con Agra, are surprised by this, may I recommend a very nice deep and cold well in the middle of the Con Agra land in which you can stick your head and leave your tail feathers in the air?
My 5 y/r boy is always asking: Daddy, are we there yet?
Con Agra HQ is always asking of their local paid and allegedly volunteer operatives: Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
The honest answer has to be: No, kids, we are not. We are further than ever. The local tribe members are coming at us from the trees!
Put it on the ballot!
Based on FBI crime stats for 2011…
West Sac
– 49,816 population
– 60.6% white, 10.5% Asian
– $54,040 median household income
– 172 violent crimes
– 1,345 property crimes
Davis
– 63,282 population
– 64.9% white, 21.9% Asian
– $61,181 median income
– 99 violent crimes
– 1,738 property crimes
Natomas is not a city, so its crime stats are not easily available.
I wonder how much of Davis’s property crimes are from the criminals of West Sacramento coming here to do their business?
I am sure there is a strong correlation to median income, the percentage of non-white/Asian residents, and crime.
But I’m not able to make the leap that our city progressives are hiding a more sinister motivation to keep crime-causing “undesirables” out of Davis, because some of them advocate for more apartments and low-income housing… which would certainly result in more low-income people and the higher crime levels they tend to bring with them.
The blocking of certain business parks and the opposition to businesses of a certain size, leads me to think they are more concerned about having more private-sector professional workers in the city. And the only reason I can come up with for why they would not want more private-sector professional workers in the city is that it might change the balance of politics in the city from being 70% liberal to something less.
By the way, Folsom’s stats are as follows:
– 70,497 population
– 74.3% white, 12.5% Asian
– $95,143 median income
– 105 violent crimes
– 1,484 property crimes
Lookin’ good!
And Folsom gets $26,474 in sales revenue per capita to Davis’s measly $7,752. Even West Sac gets $11,386 in sales revenue per capita.
[quote]The blocking of certain business parks and the opposition to businesses of a certain size, leads me to think they are more concerned about having more private-sector professional workers in the city. And the only reason I can come up with for why they would not want more private-sector professional workers in the city is that it might change the balance of politics in the city from being 70% liberal to something less. [/quote]
Also not true. Maybe you could focus on the issues, rather than the motives of those you disagree with.
[quote]GI – it sounds like you don’t believe the ConAgra folks and Robb White and others that tell us that this is not a good location for a larger business park than is proposed.
[/quote]
Comeon GI, how much does ConAgra have to gain by getting the zoning changed? What do you think they’re going to say? As far as others saying it’s a bad location there have also been “others” who say it’s a good location.
Comeon Frankly…….
GI – I work with commercial real estate brokers for a living and they tell me that the ConAgra site is limiting in terms of marketability. A business looking for commercial real estate will list criteria. Size and cost are generally the top two. Depending on the business, location can be a common third. Freeway access is another. Proximity to residential is one that some companies see as a neighbor conflict avoidance requirement.
The ConAgra sits is suboptimal for a larger business park.
I understand that the area around the hospital has some significant draining issues. It is also a ways off I-80, but otherwise HW-113 is better than having delivery and shipping trucks traverse Covell.
Mace 391 checks all the boxes.
[i]Also not true. Maybe you could focus on the issues, rather than the motives of those you disagree with[/i]
Give me a break Don, you project motives with your opinions all the time.
One NEEDS to understand motives to productively exchange ideas. If the other side is full of hidden agendas and mystery motives, then there is this tendency for their arguments to be incongruous and incomplete from a fact and logic perspective.
Honestly, I am not yet satisfied that I understand the opposition’s concerns given all the conflicting comments and data points.
By the way, I am an ENTJ.
“My 5 y/r boy is always asking: Daddy, are we there yet? “
“Con Agra HQ is always asking of their local paid and allegedly volunteer operatives: Are we there yet? Are we there yet? “
“The honest answer has to be: No, kids, we are not. We are further than ever. The local tribe members are coming at us from the trees! “
Mike you have anything to say that makes any sense?
I lived in one of the B Street houses across from central park for 3 years when I was in college. The house was pretty run down but it had a lot of charm and quirkiness. A cellar, 2 of the bedrooms were directly connected by a door, a funky bathroom with a free standing tub separate from the shower, and old fixtures. Original wood flooring, a mail slot in the front door, large but not maintained yards (front and back.) As a UCD student it was an ideal location, close to both campus and downtown. I loved that my house practically back-up to Cafe Roma where I logged many hours studying and that I could walk to the end of my street and get a teriyaki chicken bowl for $5.00, that after a Friday night at the bars I could stumble home, and that every Wednesday a Farmer’s Market set up across the street.
For sentimental reasons I’m sad that these houses are starting to be replaced by condos/apartments. That their charm and quirkiness and history will be replaced. But in doing it will give more people the chance to live downtown and experience all the benefits that come with it. Maybe when my kids are grown we will sell our house in the burbs and I can live downtown again, although I think my stumbling home from the bar days are over.
B Nice – it appears that JustSaying nailed it for you…
[quote]I don’t think it’s fear, Frankly, but love–an understandable appreciation and nostalgia for the way things used to be. A positive, but futile, way to think that the future will evolve.[/quote]
So, your motive appears to go back in a time machine.
“I do support bringing in hi-tech business, I’ve posted that many times. We have a great location that’s already zoned for business at the Cannery.”
The light industrial zoning that was appropriate in the early 1960s when the Hunt-Wesson plant was built doesn’t make sense now that Davuis residential areas have grown out beyond the cannery property. The light industrial operation has been shut down since October 1999, probably much to the pleasure of surrounding neighborhoods.
Sincer there is no interest in maintaining the light industrial designation (except from a few folks who have neither the money or the businesses to
build a business park), what’s wrong with using the site to make our housing infill dreams come true?
“50 years ago: 1956 Davis – Local residents voted, 1,473 to 900, in favor of locating a multi-million-dollar Hunt Foods Inc. plant in Davis. The vote came in a special straw ballot called by the city council to sample public opinion in a controversy that has stirred considerable heat between the pros and the cons. Results are not legally binding on the council, but will serve as an indication of the sentiment of the community. Proponents of the location of the Hunt plant in Davis had hoped for a two-thirds majority.” – The Daily Democrat 11/13/2006 via Daviswiki.
[quote]So, your motive appears to go back in a time machine.[/quote]
I don’t have any motive. I do feel fortunate to have gotten to live where I did, it was ideal. As many of the others on that strip, the house I lived in was not well cared for or maintained. Our rent was low and the location great so we never complained or asked for anything, leases were never signed, instead the house was just past from friend to friend. None of us even had a key to the house, so the door remained unlocked. It was an eye sore then, and still is now.
I understand the argument for replacing these with higher density housing, it will be nice for more people to be able to live in such a great location, but I will be sad to see those houses with all their quirkiness, and a lot of my fond memories torn down.
One not so fond memories, the cock roaches, we would flip on the lights when we got home at night to see hundreds of them scatter….
There are only 2 things people in Davis oppose with respect to development: Density and Sprawl.
Jim Donovan
Frankly
[quote]One NEEDS to understand motives to productively exchange ideas.[/quote]
I agree. And what leads to understanding of motives is to ask, and believe what people say are their motives.
Making up stories about what their motives are that happen to fit with your individual ideology does not lead to understanding.
Case in point. I do not fear change. It is just that my vision of the change that I would like to see simply is in conflict with yours. For example, I would like to see the city create changes that would provide incentives for people to not drive downtown at all. This would be much more creative and would require much more change than say building a new parking lot which is actually no real change at all, just more of the same.This would lead to less traffic, less congestion and an overall more pleasant shopping experience. I do not see this as a step back. I see it as a more beneficial and far healthier way to approach the future. I see a future in which our children choose to drive less, be more physically active, not mind walking a few blocks to their destination and do not expect instant gratification. My preferred future would include much more diversity than does an automobile centered bedroom community.
Much of what you are promoting is not really change at all. Just more of the same materialistic driven, individual gain trumps all else point of view that we all grew up with.
I would like to see us promote a society in which the highest value is not what we can personally acquire, but rather what we can personally contribute. Again, I embrace change, just not the kind of change you seem to value.
[i]There are only 2 things people in Davis oppose with respect to development: Density and Sprawl.[/i]
LOL!
When I first read this I thought it was “destiny and sprawl”.
Probably accurate too.
medwoman: [quote] I would like to see the city create changes that would provide incentives for people to not drive downtown at all. This would be much more creative and would require much more change than say building a new parking lot which is actually no real change at all, just more of the same.This would lead to less traffic, less congestion and an overall more pleasant shopping experience. I do not see this as a step back. I see it as a more beneficial and far healthier way to approach the future. I see a future in which our children choose to drive less, be more physically active, not mind walking a few blocks to their destination and do not expect instant gratification. My preferred future would include much more diversity than does an automobile centered bedroom community. [/quote]
Many of us live in those “automobile centered bedroom communities” and DO live the non-automobile centered lifestyle you want to promote. I’m out and about daily but rarely get behind the wheel of a car…maybe once a week average, and that’s often because I’m leaving Davis. Davis is small enough that you can pretty much bike anywhere no matter WHERE you live relatively easily.
If anything, having to bike a couple of miles or so to get downtown DOES promote a healthy lifestyle. This isn’t an argument against a “bedroom community” like Mace Ranch or Wildhorse, but instead an argument for expanding the wonderful system of bike baths and tunnels.
One reason people like these bedroom communities is because kids CAN go out and play, run around, be physically active over a large sprawl of lawn and in safe cul-de-sacs, play in neighborhood parks adjacent to the homes, etc. So what to you is an automobile dependent, anti-physical activity living environment to others is the opposite. It all depends upon lifestyle choices.
Some of us who live out in the so-called automobile dependent bedroom communities aren’t attracted to living in high-density buildings a couple of blocks from downtown where there is far more traffic to contend with, kids don’t necessarily have a backyard in which they can run around, they can’t run out their front door and play. I recall you using the same anti- automobile centric logic when discussing Cannery project. It made zero sense to me, frankly, as it would be a quick bike ride downtown (closer than where I currently live and ride downtown). I know you said you were emotionally bullied to live in North Davis and during those years you hated the lifestyle, but quite honestly if I lived in that neighborhood I’d certainly be riding my bike around town just like I do currently.
B Nice: [quote] Maybe when my kids are grown we will sell our house in the burbs and I can live downtown again, although I think my stumbling home from the bar days are over.[/quote] I loved hearing your story about living on 3rd. I’ve often looked at those old houses and thought about how much fun it would be to be a college student and live in those homes. And I’m with you…once the kids are grown I love the idea of living downtown.
[i]I would like to see the city create changes that would provide incentives for people to not drive downtown at all. [/i]
That might work if we relocate Davis Ace and Watermelon Music to the periphery.
Frankly:[quote] I would like to see the city create changes that would provide incentives for people to not drive downtown at all.
That might work if we relocate Davis Ace and Watermelon Music to the periphery.[/quote] LOL! Very true.
Now that you mention it, having to pay for parking is most definitely an incentive for me to not drive downtown…as is having to move my car to another zone. The plastic bag ban (pardon me, ordinance) might help in that regard as well. 😉
Ginger
[quote]It made zero sense to me, frankly, as it would be a quick bike ride downtown (closer than where I currently live and ride downtown)[/quote]
I think the reason it made zero sense to you is because it did not apply to you. But do all of your neighbors spend as much time of their bikes or feet as you do ? Or for most of them, do they have a commute or pack their kids in the car to go to school ? Maybe things have changed but I can remember lines of cars dropping kids off at the elementary, junior high and high school. Other folks have jobs that take them out of town at odd hours making car pooling, taking the train or buses infeasible. If everyone were using their bikes or feet, then you would not have the parking problem downtown that you and others have cited.
I do not hate the neighborhoods themselves and agree that they have all the advantages you have stated. They also promote use of cars, as will the Cannery as currently planned.
medwoman [quote]I think the reason it made zero sense to you is because it did not apply to you. [/quote] That was exactly my point.
medwoman [quote]If everyone were using their bikes or feet, then you would not have the parking problem downtown that you and others have cited. I do not hate the neighborhoods themselves and agree that they have all the advantages you have stated. [/quote] So you’re in favor of dense urban-type settings where cars are basically not used at all? Where people HAVE to use their feet and bikes to go to school, shopping, etc.?
medwoman [quote] But do all of your neighbors spend as much time of their bikes or feet as you do ?[/quote] Of course not. But I also know for a fact that plenty of people who live in the core area don’t walk the few blocks it takes to get downtown, either. They drive their kids to school or to the train station or the Co-op, etc. Unless you want to outlaw cars, people will have a choice and no matter where they live some will opt for the four wheels.
Medwoman: “[i]My preferred future would include much more diversity than does an automobile centered bedroom community.[/i]”
If our future is to be something other than an ‘automobile centered bedroom community’ we will need to have jobs for our citizens so they won’t have to drive somewhere else to work. Since the [i]status quo[/i] has not created those jobs, what approaches to economic development do you propose to create those jobs?
[quote]I loved hearing your story about living on 3rd. I’ve often looked at those old houses and thought about how much fun it would be to be a college student and live in those homes.[/quote]
I was lucky. Every once and a while I still have dreams about that house.