In advance of the proposed Davis Innovation Parks going to the voters, perhaps as soon as June 2016, the city commissioned BAE Urban Economics, Inc., to conduct a study on the economic impact of the proposed innovation parks.
At the time, the analysis considered each of the proposed innovation park proposals independently and the cumulative scenario with both parks. However, the Davis Innovation Center has been placed on hold and therefore, while they did not redo the entire study, some of the findings are now obsolete.
The report “estimates that potential absorption for individual innovation parks could average approximately 140,000 square feet per year, and that a cumulative scenario involving development of the two innovation parks plus the Nishi Property could absorb approximately 150,000 per year.”
That build out may well produce a substantial employee housing demand. Given that a Mace Ranch Project would project to 2.65 million square feet, over an estimated build out of seven to 25 years, they project around 5882 employees by 2035, which is substantially lower than the estimated 10,842 at Davis Innovation Center, which would project up to 18,390 new employees.
Right now the projected housing demand accommodated in Davis is 1238, with another 2525 demanded outside of Davis.
The report also finds that the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) project alone would generate “sufficient employee daytime spending to provide adequate market support for their respective proposed ancillary retail components.” They continue, “By buildout, there would be more than sufficient internal demand to support the ancillary retail space included in each of the development scenarios. In any event, it would be reasonable for the City to establish phasing controls for ancillary retail development, to ensure that new retail facilities being developed in a given development scenario do not outpace the increase in employee demand for daytime retail, dining and services.”
On the other hand, with regard to hotel components, “none of the three development scenarios would generate internal demand adequate to support their respective hotel components.” Again they conclude, “Given the range of potential outcomes, it would be reasonable for the City to establish phasing controls for hotel development, to ensure that new hotel facilities being developed in a given development scenario do not outpace the increase in market area demand for hotels (including innovation park business-related demand and other sources).”
BAE notes, “The innovation park proposals seek to tap into opportunities for economic growth that arise from the rapid introduction of technology into all facets of life. The rise of innovation parks, or science and technology parks, is an evolution of the concept of research parks which first appeared in the U.S. in the 1950s.”
They cite from the Brookings Study on the key benefits of “innovation districts”:
- First, innovation districts further the ability of cities and metropolitan areas to grow jobs in ways that both align with disruptive forces in the economy and leverage their distinct economic position.
- Second, innovation districts can specifically empower entrepreneurs as a key vehicle for economic growth and job creation.
- Third, innovation districts can grow better and more accessible jobs at a time of rising poverty and social inequality.
BAE concludes, “Davis is exceptionally well-positioned to capitalize on the types of advantages that innovation parks can bestow on a community, due to the presence of the UC Davis campus within the community.”
Davis has been historically underdeveloped in terms of “commercial land uses in relation to the size of the local base of residential development. For decades, Davis has balanced opportunities for retail development with a desire to protect the downtown and neighborhood retail centers against undue competition from large peripheral retail developments.”
They note, “Davis has not only been constrained by limited availability of built space for growing local firms, or for medium or large-sized firms that might be interested in moving to Davis from out of the area, it has also been constrained by a limited selection of land that could be purchased by owner-users or by developers who are interested in catering to the facility needs of businesses that are interested in growing or expanding within the region.”
They find that even since 2010 when the city conducted things like DSIDE (Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy) and the Business Park Land Strategy study, “the available inventory of potential business park sites has declined by about 93 acres, leaving Davis with a very limited supply of land that is zoned for office/tech/light industrial development.”
They write, “Consultation with staff from the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization (SACTO) confirms that this lack of available building space has been a hindrance to Davis being able to accommodate interest from businesses that are contemplating a move to the Sacramento Area.”
According to SACTO, a number of companies with interest in coming into Davis would have fit with the profile for tenants at the innovation parks “but which could not consider Davis due to a lack of space.” These were companies looking to enter the region for the first time or expand. “SACTO staff found 15 company prospects that meet these characteristics,” which would have amounted to 477,000 square feet and 360 jobs.
The report notes that recent trends provide a good starting point for growth. The report notes, “Over the last decade, Davis has quietly emerged as one of the Sacramento Region’s leading locations for various types of tech-related businesses.”
SARTA (Sacramento Regional Technology Alliance), for example, has developed an inventory of 530 tech businesses in the Sacramento region, and 57 of them or about 11 percent of the regional total are located in the Davis area. “This list includes six businesses in the software/apps category, 11 in the clean tech category, 22 in the med tech category, three in the components/materials category, and 14 in the ag tech category.”
A City of Davis staff analysis found “Davis has the highest concentration of tech businesses relative to the size of the population within the Sacramento Region.”
BAE writes, “Discussions with various local tech sector stakeholders as well as representatives of the regional economic development community have indicated that the creation of a critical mass of successful local businesses should help to make Davis more attractive to other tech businesses, which will be interested in locating in an area where there is a community of like-minded entrepreneurs, and where there is an established labor pool of skilled employees.”
Among the success stories in Davis are: DMG Mori Seiki, Expression Systems, HM.Clause, Greenbotics, Arcadia Biosciences, Marrone Bio Innovations, FMC/Schilling Robotics, Engage3, and Bayer CropScience.
The report notes, “The Bayer CropScience relocation and expansion in West Sacramento might be viewed as a lost opportunity for Davis, had the City had adequate space available to accommodate the consolidation.”
“There are other examples of ag tech businesses that have recently chosen to invest in other locations outside of Davis, such as Monsanto’s 90,000 square foot expansion just west of Woodland, and Syngenta’s 42,000 square foot expansion also west of Woodland.” While any number of factors may have precluding these projects from occurring in Davis, the investments are further evidence of the area’s attractiveness,” they write.
And there are new opportunities as well in the Ag Tech and Food industry, along with BioTech and MedTech.
Davis has a number of competitive advantages that can help the community successfully link to knowledge-based industries. First, Davis has a highly educated population. In November 2014, it was the 11th most educated place in the US, second only to Palo Alto in California and ahead of places like Cambridge, Cupertino, Ann Arbor and Boulder.
Second, UC Davis produces a large number of educated workers each year – many of whom are forced to leave the region due to lack of opportunities.
Moreover, Davis has a high quality of life. The study notes, “Numerous studies have drawn a linkage between quality of life and knowledge workers who provide the intellectual capital that drives innovation economies. Economic development practitioners are increasingly realizing that best practices in economic development involve attracting the talented workforce that knowledge-based companies require as a prerequisite to effective business attraction efforts.”
The study notes the outstanding public schools, community amenities, continuing education, and diverse mobility including “its national reputation as a walkable/bikeable community, it access to the Capitol Corridor rail system and local buses.”
It is also located “in the largest and most productive food producing region in the world” with many high value crops and easy access to the State Capitol and Bay Area.
Other key assets are UC Davis, “a world class research institution with annual research activity growing rapidly and approaching $1 billion.” The report notes, “Another element that has not been as visible off campus until more recently is the collection of innovation-based businesses and formal and informal networks that connect them to each other as well as to the activities at the university. Davis’s tech sector has grown over the last decade.”
The report also catalogs a number of new programs and initiatives launched by UC Davis. Some of these include the Venture Catalyst group within the Office of Research, UC Davis Child Family Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, housed in the Graduate School of Management, UC Davis Seed Biotechnology Center, Davis Roots, and many others.
What has held Davis back? Nothing is really a surprise here, but when they interviewed those in the tech sector, “There was strong consensus among those interviewed that Davis’ limited availability of buildings and land for businesses to start-up and grow in Davis or for existing businesses to relocate to Davis has been a major limiting factor in Davis’ historic growth.”
They analyzed four absorption scenarios, which we summarize here.
- The first scenario is based on the land absorption pattern documented in the Business Park Land Strategy, which indicated that average absorption office and business park land in Davis between 1999 and 2008 was approximately 8.6 acres per year. At this rate, the individual innovation parks might each require approximately 25 years to absorb if developing as the only innovation park in Davis during that time frame. Under the cumulative scenario, which considers the possibility that both innovation parks, along with the Mace Triangle property, and the Nishi Property project would all be developed, the absorption time frame would be approximately 51 years.
- The second scenario is based on an absorption assumption that involves Davis entitling and developing only one innovation park. The assumption of 140,000 square feet of absorption potential per year is derived from the absorption performance of the City of Folsom and the City of Boulder, which each have different attributes that provide comparability to Davis. In addition, the 140,000 square foot figure is within the middle range of individual science and technology parks profiled for this analysis. At this absorption rate, the Davis IC would require approximately 26 years to absorb and the MRIC would absorb more quickly, in approximately 17 years, due to its smaller proposed tech space square footage.
- The third scenario is a cumulative absorption scenario that acknowledges the potential for slightly accelerated overall absorption, if the City entitles and develops Davis IC, MRIC, and the Nishi Property. The small increase in annual average absorption is meant to recognize that although there is significant overlap in the types of business spaces that can be accommodated in the individual innovation park projects, providing multiple innovation park options will increase the City’s flexibility to accommodate the widest possible range of users. Additionally, with more than one project actively developing in Davis, the additional regional and national marketing efforts could help to boost awareness of Davis as an innovation hub, and enhance business attraction efforts. For this scenario, BAE assumes the absorption potential would be approximately 150,000 square feet per year, which would result in full absorption of the cumulative scenario within about 49 years.
- Finally, an upper end absorption scenario is provided, which utilizes an annual absorption rate of 350,000 square feet per year. This is within the range of absorption observed in the locations profiled for this study that had the most robust absorption over time, including the Sorrento Valley-Torrey Pines-La Jolla area, Research Triangle Park, Hacienda Business Park, and Bishop Ranch business park. This scenario illustrates that Davis IC would require 11 years to absorb at this rate, MRIC would require seven years, and the cumulative scenario would require 21 years. Although it may not be sustainable consistently from year to year, large expansion projects, such as Schilling Robotics, which could expand from 200,000 to 400,000 square feet, or relocations of larger established businesses from out of the area could propel absorption to this level in a given year.
We will look at the housing issue more closely in a future article.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I found this to be a very interesting article from a number of perspectives.
“A City of Davis staff analysis found “Davis has the highest concentration of tech businesses relative to the size of the population within the Sacramento Region.”
“Among the success stories in Davis are: DMG/ Mori Seiki, Expression Systems, HM Clause, Greenbotics, Arcadia Biosciences, Marrone Bio Innovations, FMC/ Schilling Robotics, Engage3, and Bayer CropScience”
With these two statements, it would appear clear that Davis has not been stagnant as some claim but has a steadily developing tech sector which is in my mind what we should be aiming for, steady development. Not the highly reactive boom and bust mentality that seems to characterize our economy.
“Second, UC Davis produces a large number of educated workers each year – many of whom are forced to leave the region due to lack of opportunities.”
Having been one of these educated workers, I have a very different take on this. I did not perceive myself as “being forced to leave”, I saw my situation as maximizing my opportunities elsewhere and then either returning ( as I did) or not if I liked my other options better.
“Moreover Davis has a high quality of life. They study notes, “Numerous studies have drawn a linkage between quality of life and knowledge workers who provide the intellectual capital that drives innovation economies. Economic development practitioners are increasingly realizing that best practices in economic development involve attracting the talented workforce that knowledge-based companies require as a prerequisite to effective business attraction efforts.”
“Davis’s tech sector has grown over the last decade,”
So it would seem that the authors and I are in agreement that Davis already does have a high quality of life and has had a growing tech sector completely independent of these large business parks which as the authors state go back in their origin to the 1950’s. This was a time period that was very automobile dependent, lacked the internet and other communications technologies that we now take for granted, and depended almost exclusively on physical proximity for rapid collaboration. We have been, and should continue to be moving away from, not towards this outdated paradigm.
“Although it may not be sustainable consistently from year to year, large expansion projects, such as Schilling Robotics, which could expand from 200,000 to 400,000 square feet, or relocations of larger established businesses from out of the area could propel absorption to this level in a given year.”
I see the key, and largely underemphasized phrase here as “may not be sustainable”. The assumption being made by those who favored building as much as possible, or “all three” of the proposed parks, is that they will be sustainable. This is quite an assumption given the history of ups and downs of various mainstays of our economy over time. Further, as the authors point out, it would likely depend on the ability to relocate larger businesses from out of town. I do not see this as desirable. Leveraging work done at UCD, I see as very valuable. Deliberately bringing in large outside companies to pay for the amenities that we have chosen when we should be paying for them ourselves, not so much so. In the long run, the growth itself will have costs that are being downplayed in this rapid growth scenario.
“What has held Davis back?”
I would say nothing other than the mistakes made in budgeting and use of taxpayer dollars. Davis, by these authors accounting as well as my perception, has grown over the past decades as illustrated by their list of companies. Davis has grown in the tech sector. It has been leveraging research from the university, albeit not as extensively as other, larger cities some of which are and want to be part of a larger contiguous metropolitan area as opposed to separate and distinct cities. I do not see Davis as “held back”. I see it as having chosen to grow via a slow, if somewhat messy manner. In my mind “slow” does not equate to backwards, but rather to carefully considered rather than rashly expansionist. More and faster is not synonymous with better.
Nice Tia. Cherry pick details, take them out of context and leave out all that stuff inconvenient to your stasis demands.
The point is that Davis’s quality of life is in decline, and will absolutely crash at some point, if we don’t maintain a reasonably-sized local private economy. Your demands to prevent growth at all costs will cost us dearly in the long run.
It has already cost us dearly. Davis has been on the sidelines throughout the current tech sector expansion. We’re not even in the conversation.
davis is definitely in the conversation. but we are shooting ourselves in the … (foot).
people like to blame it on our land use policies, but it’s our divisive politics that hurts us more. dic did not leave because of measure r. we didn’t fire rob white because of measure r. we look like a bunch of dufuses firing a respected leader like rob white and replacing him with a political hack like diane parro. that’s what kills us. we are about to flush a golden opportunity down the toilet.
The West Davis Innovation Center pulled out primarily because of Measure R and the control it provides land preservation special interests, and their partners in crime… those change-averse voters.
You keep saying stuff like this, suggesting that you know why the DIC pulled out. Do you have inside information? Last time I recall you blamed it on comments by staff and local leaders, or something like that. Without revealing sources, can you say that you have actually spoken to the principals and have better information about the basis of their decision?
DP: We obviously get attention (and, as you point out, some of it negative) in the Sac Metro region, but what goes on in our little parochial echo chamber doesn’t count. Outside of the region, Davis is largely irrelevant to the discussion. UCD is another matter. The university is growing in international prominence. We don’t get credit for that. UCD’s accomplishments are largely in spite of Davis, not because of Davis.
Primarily because they determined that they would lose a Measure R vote because they did not have support of political leadership to help them sell it and overcome the resistance.
what evidence is there that davis quality of life is in decline?
Roads, parks, and bike paths in disrepair; city services unavailable every other Friday, lack of shopping options and restaurants, more congestion, more commuter traffic in and out of Davis, fewer millennials, fewer young families and closed schools due to the drop in enrollment, budget problems, higher taxes, looming fiscal insolvency, inability to do things like build sports parks, school funding parcel taxes at risk due to other tax increases, UCD and Davis more in conflict, students and other low income people unable to find housing, lack of affordable housing, restaurants and other downtown business struggling from high rents, concentrated homeless and vagrant population problem.
Need I go on?
yes you do need to go on. most of what you describe has either always been true here (and therefore by definition not a decline) or true across the board (meaning not specific to davis)
You might want to re-read that list again and think about what you wrote.
most of those issues have been around for a long time or are not specific to davis (mainly thinking about the roads)
DP: Frankly is correct. While these issues have been around a long time, the trend is negative and the city is in decline.
Frankly: I can think of at least a dozen plausible reasons why the NEQ project halted the processing of their application. However, you need look no further than the report referenced in this article to find one of the most plausible theories.
Think about risk and opportunity costs.
And that raises the question of why they didn’t just walk away, but instead put the project on hold.
Hmmm-i have never read Tia as demanding that growth be prevented at all costs. I have read her as advocating slow, planned growth for Davis-and I couldn’t agree more.
Like many people that are true anti-growth, they want to appear balanced and objective but meanwhile never say a thing in support of development. The best she can do is to say that she needs more information. And then when she gets it she jumps to criticizing it and demanding more “proof”.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Despite trying to dress up as a goose.
The adsorption rates will be lower than those projected in the BAE report if the Davis housing stock remains stagnant. This, in turn, will translate into lower tax revenue to the city.
If Davis wants to develop a large technology sector tax base, entitled land is necessary but not sufficient.
It will require significant (and coordinated) improvements in our housing supply, portfolio of public amenities, backbone infrastructure, city leadership, UCD partnership, and downtown.
The fact of the matter is that we are just not that attractive relative to the established and emerging tech hubs that we have to compete with. Either for the companies themselves or the workforce that they rely on to grow (esp Millennials and Gen X professionals).
UC Davis is an ag school situated in a small rural city surrounded by farmland and open space. It seems a lot of people want it to be something else.
doesn’t it have a top medical school? the top veterinary school? isn’t it becoming a leader in food issues? medtech? biotech? agtech? isn’t that the future of not only the university but this world?
The UC Med Center is not in Davis. I consider the vet school to be ag-related. Food issues are ag. Ag tech is ag, obviously, and a great area for growth here. None of that negates my point. I don’t think that most people consider UCD to be a major center for medtech or biotech other than at-related biotech.
I was describing the history and the perception as much as the reality, and I don’t think your examples do anything to contradict what I said. CalAg said
That is true. Davis is not a tech hub in the sense that most people think of them. It won’t be. Some people really seem to think it will or should. Davis should focus on its strengths.
a fair point don.
by way of example here are some of the successes from davis tech industry:
in a sense, i guess you could argue a lot of these are ag oriented. but not schilling. not engage3. i think we will see more greentech. sunpower and some other startups come to mind. there are medical innovations as well that i have seen in some of the jumpstart stuff. davis is not going to be silicon valley, but i think we will see is an emergence of tech related companies focused around medical, biotech, agtech, and green-tech.
Don Shor is quoting me out of context. Here is my entire statement without the cherry picking
I believe that we should aspire to become an emerging tech hub that is relevant to the national discussion. If the community wants to go in this direction, it will require a sea change in Davis, and not just entitling some land and paying lip service to innovation and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The opposing position is apparently that we should play to our strengths. This is a prescription for Davis to remain mediocre and irrelevant.
Davis is neither mediocre nor irrelevant in the fields that I’m familiar with. I always wonder what brings someone here and what keeps them here when they despise it so much.
Ag tech, ag bioscience, genetic engineering, veterinary medicine, animal sciences, specialized ag fields of viticulture and enology and pomology, and much more — Davis is a world leader in many areas. There is little likelihood that will change, and those are all important sciences for the 21st century.
There isn’t going to be a “sea change.” The Davis community and electorate has some pretty clear patterns of behavior. I expect you’re going to be very unhappy if you expect a significant change in those attitudes.
Regarding the insinuated ad hominem by “the moderator,” I don’t despise Davis. In fact I have such high regard for the city and its potential that I have wasted a couple of hours today on the Vanguard providing free content and traffic to David Greenwald.
Since “the moderator” is conflating UCD and Davis to once again mischaracterize my position, I will lay it out one more time.
With respect to our overall technology sector (and by extension the City’s economic development efforts to foster this sector), Davis is mediocre and irrelevant relative to the emerging tech hubs nationwide. That is not meant to take anything away from our local success stories (Calgene, Agraquest, Schilling, Mori, HM.CLAUSE, Arcadia, Novozymes, etc., etc.). These are great achievements that provide proof-of-concept that Davis can aspire to become more than what we are. However, to move forward, the community will have to look beyond the petty and parochial mind set of some that we need to sacrifice our potential to protect the status quo. I believe that the necessary sea change will come when the upcoming tax measures start to fail and Davis has to look into the jaws of a true fiscal crisis.
With respect to UCD, the university has numerous outstanding programs campus-wide. Davis (the City) doesn’t get credit for the world-class performance of UCD.
UCD is moving up the charts in spite of Davis, not because of Davis.
When I am acting as moderator, I put my comments in italics and preface them with [moderator]. When I comment on the Vanguard otherwise, I am just another commenter like you. There is no need to conflate the two or refer to me as “the moderator.” The fact that I volunteer to monitor the comments on the Vanguard neither increases nor diminishes my standing as a participant.
Davis is not a small rural city. Not by a pretty big margin.
You and I have disagreed about this definition before. I know you wish to believe that Davis is not a small city. Certainly you consider it rural?
Conde Nast ranks the 10 Best Small Cities in America below. Davis population fits right in there. Davis is a small rural city.
Key West 25,550
Sedona 10,111
Aspen 6,658
Jackson WY 9,577
Santa Barbara 90,412
Newport RI 24,027
Telluride 2,303
Napa 76,915
Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,842
Santa FE NM 69,976
Do, can’t you do simple numerical comparisons? Look at your list. The closest one is Santa Barbara. You are going to call Santa Barbara a “small rural city”? Give me a break. 72,000 population is a medium-sized city. And our population density puts us on par with large urban areas. Our peers are all primary urban areas. I cannot do any USDA rural loans in and around Davis because USDA classifies Davis as a Metro Area in a Metro Region.
You need to let go of this. Davis is not a small rural city. It used to be. Dixon is a small rural city. Esparto is a small rural city. There are a bunch of small rural cities up and down I-5. There are few along I-80… really only Dixon is the last one.
Those are small cities, according to Conde Nast. I didn’t say they were rural. Davis, on their list, would be a small city. It is rural. Ergo, it is a small rural city.
You’re the one that “needs to let go of this.” Dixon is a small rural city. Davis is a small rural city.
Please pick out the cities on the list that you consider to be “small rural cities”:
Napa city
76,915
Redwood City city
76,815
Bellflower city
76,616
Indio city
76,036
Tustin city
75,540
Baldwin Park city
75,390
Chino Hills city
74,799
Mountain View city
74,066
Alameda city
73,812
Upland city
73,732
Folsom city
72,203
San Ramon city
72,148
Pleasanton city
70,285
Lynwood city
69,772
Union City city
69,516
Apple Valley town
69,135
Redlands city
68,747
Turlock city
68,549
Perris city
68,386
Manteca city
67,096
Milpitas city
66,790
Redondo Beach city
66,748
Davis city
65,622
Camarillo city
65,201
Yuba City city
64,925
Rancho Cordova city
64,776
Palo Alto city
64,403
Yorba Linda city
64,234
Walnut Creek city
64,173
South San Francisco city
63,632
San Clemente city
63,522
Pittsburg city
63,264
Laguna Niguel city
62,979
Yes, those are all small cities. Some of them might be rural; a quick look shows Yuba City and Turlock. I’d say those are small rural cities. Davis is a small rural city.
Thanks for proving my point.
LOL. You are a crack up Don. All but a couple of those are urban areas connected with larger urban areas.
I could go through them one at a time and destroy your simplistic, data-lacking, opinion. But it would be a waste of time.
But you do know that not a single one is recognized as rural by USDA, right? The Federal agency responsible for rural American cannot provide many of their services to these communities because they don’t meet the Federal definition of rural.
Here is a tool to help you research it on your own…
http://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do?pageAction=RBSmenu&NavKey=property@13
The Sacramento region is poised for economic expansion. I am thinking that you think Davis can resist this and become an island surrounded by a farmland moat where you can still demand that it is small and rural and that UCD is just an ag school.
I give you credit, you are stubborn in your beliefs like a Christian fundamentalist. I do applaud the conviction.
You think Davis is an urban area connected with a larger urban area?
Don, the reality is that the distance from the Davis urban area to the Sacramento urban area is only 8 miles, and there are 48,744 people living in the area defined by that 8 mile separation.
With that said, why are we arguing about whose label is more correct. The reality is the litany of problems listed in Frankly’s earlier post, to which I will add the fact that from 2000 to 2010, while Davis’ overall population grew 5,500 from 60,000 to 65,500, the age cohort from 25 to 55 shrank in size by 1,540 and the age cohort from 0 to 20 shrank by 867. That is a major problem for the sustainability of the retail businesses in Davis and the sustainability of the Davis Schools. If we continue on that track, the local economy will be more and more dominated by service businesses that cater to the two growing age cohorts (20-24 which was up 3,500 and 55 and over which was up 2,626).
Again, Davis is NOT a small rural city just because Don says so.
It is hilarious that a city with a population density of 7,200 per square mile, a population of 72,000 and surrounded by large metropolitan areas with some of the worst freeway traffic in the country going right through the middle of town continues to be labeled small and rural.
I think some people like to see the world as they might like it, not as it is.
Ok, Davis is a small city in a rural area. Better? Not contiguous with any other city, surrounded by farmland and open space. Somewhat unique in that regard, for a small city.
Huh? Are you referring to I-80? or downtown? In either case, I really think the coastal cities of So Cal and the Bay Area have much greater traffic congestion than anything you’ll experience in Davis.
I-80 cuts right through the middle of the city… the medium-sized California city we live in.
By population Davis is ranked #121 st out of 481 cities in California.
By population density is is #105.
The population density of the City of Los Angeles is 7,544 per square mile… not much higher than our 7,200 per square mile. Costa Mesa is 7,004 people per square mile. The list goes on.
There is not a single city with anything close to our population size and density that are not fully urban.
Not by the government definitions. Davis is a 250,000-under Metro City in a 1,000,000 Metro Area.
That seems like a fairly broad category, since it would also presumably include, say, Dixon and Fairfield. I’ll stick with ‘small city in a rural area’.
Go here and to page #3.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Rural_Definitions/StateLevel_Maps/CA.pdf
Then go to page #5 and #6.
So your “rural area” is supported for some things. That makes sense as we note all the farmland and low population density.
But Davis itself is a Metro area.
And it is not a “small” city unless you are talking about geographic footprint. Which would be weird as Manhattan is only about 3 times the geographic size of Davis.
Maybe you can explain your definition of small verse large. What is your cutoff for population and population density?
Roughly speaking a small city is up to 150 – 200K. Proximity to another city or a metropolitan area makes a difference in the ‘feel’ of small.
Most of us refer to any smaller city in a larger metro area as if it’s all part of the same. (When I moved up here, I realized that most people had no idea what actually comprised the LA metro area, and thought it was all “LA” — they also all thought San Diego was part of LA).
Up to 500K is a medium city (Sacramento). 500K to a million is a big city. The Big Three (NY, LA, Chicago) are in a class by themselves.
Density is irrelevant to me.
Davis feels like a small city because there is no other city contiguous to it, and it is not directly or culturally part of a larger metro area, although it may be for statistical purposes.
Here’s an interesting blog post reply on city-data that I found:
I should note to your credit that obviously you work with these things in your industry and have a more detailed understanding of the jargon than I do, so I’ve learned a lot from your info today.
Interesting link. Davis is a “Rural-Urban Commuting Area”?
Ok, so there is another definition of small, medium and large. I also found something from a 2009 European conference dealing with college towns and tech transfer. Unfortunately none of the content from that conference shows up from the links in the article I found. But then they were pegging medium-size as 100,000 to 500,000.
My problem is that there is a pretty large gap between the needs of a city like Dixon – one that I consider to be a small rural California city – and Davis. And I think we have people blind to those needs and trying to stuff Davis into a small rural town box that it no longer fits into.
We are small from a geographic perspective, but not in population and population density. We are really kinda’ weird in consideration of size and population density… not really any other community like us in that regard. Also not any really like us having such a small private local economy.
It is all semantics, but it matters to some degree because there is a lot of denial going on.
If you owned a small 1000 sq ft home, and then had twelve kids, would you still call your family “small”?
And if you kept up repeating that your family was small to prevent moving to a bigger place, wouldn’t you suffer some pretty harsh difficulty from lack of space?
I don’t think UCD sees itself as an ag school any longer. I read many quotes in science magazines from UCD scientists in many disciplines. I think UCD sees ag and food science as strengths to leverage while it expands its academic footprint into other sciences.
You might want to ask the school what it thinks it is and what it is working toward instead of projecting what you think it is and should be.
How do you suggest I ask the school what it thinks it is?
What we really need to “ask the school” is what their growth plans are for enrollment after the 2020 Initiative is fulfilled. It is the UCD enrollment growth that whipsaws Davis planning processes.
From UCD’s Vision Plan:
http://vision.ucdavis.edu/plan.html
“UC Davis is an ag school situated in a small rural city surrounded by farmland and open space. It seems a lot of people want it to be something else.”
And it seems like a lot of people want to pretend Davis is something that it is not.
Ok, I’ll play. What is Davis, then, if it is not a small rural city surrounded by farmland and open space?
Its the dysfunctional host to a major international research university that is rapidly climbing the ranks despite its physical location. It is one of the few places (maybe the only place) in the world where there is an ag school, med school, vet school, law school, business school, primate center, etc. co-located together. The med school still has a major (and possibly growing) presence on the main campus as it becomes increasing integrated with major initiatives in the vet school. ag school. etc. In fact, UCD is uniquely positioned for future impact, as the world moves to cross-disciplinary approaches to try and solve huge intractable problems like hunger, climate change, disease, poverty, etc. Frankly, Davis should be deeply ashamed of its failure to adequately host UCD.
the striking thing to me is the opportunity that exists in davis that we could lose by all this infighting.
Probably already lost.
Not by a long shot! There is still plenty of opportunity if the City Council and city staff buck up and get moving!
You might want to talk to UCD about that. That Solano County land is looking better every day.
Spot on DP!
Local Davis historian, John Lofland, runs a blog called Davis History Today. His most recent entry seems relevant to this discussion:
Public Policy Proposals in Davis in 2003
Go to link for the Sac Bee article.
wdf1: Great catch.
It’s important to note that the City had the framework for a solution in place in late 2010.
“Moreover, Davis has a high quality of life…
The study notes the outstanding public schools, community amenities, continuing education, and diverse mobility including “its national reputation as a walkable/bikeable community, it access to the Capitol Corridor rail system and local buses.”
It is also located “in the largest and most productive food producing region in the world” with many high value crops and easy access to the State Capitol and Bay Area.”
I am fond of Davis, but I feel as if there is a complete disconnect from reality when people say Davis has such a “high quality of life”. My daughter is attending school and currently lives in Portland, ME. It puts Davis to shame, yet is only a city of 60,000, smaller than Davis. I have heard other people who have visited other cities comment similarly, that other cities of similar size to Davis are so much nicer. In short, Davis lacks critical infrastructure. It’s buildings and roads are very poorly maintained, and frankly lack good construction. Go over to Woodland and look at their new high school sometime, as a graphic example. My point is that this city needs economic development if it wants to improve its abysmal infrastructure. Let’s not get so full of ourselves that we lose sight of the bigger picture (pardon the pun!).
Look at pictures of Portland, ME’s city hall, fire house, etc. See:
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1179&bih=622&q=portland+maine+city+hall&oq=portland+maine+city+&gs_l=img.1.0.0l3j0i30l2j0i24l5.3237.8953.0.11783.20.15.0.5.5.0.122.995.14j1.15.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.20.1011.FRCuM2gd2IY
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1179&bih=622&q=portland+maine+city+hall&oq=portland+maine+city+&gs_l=img.1.0.0l3j0i30l2j0i24l5.3237.8953.0.11783.20.15.0.5.5.0.122.995.14j1.15.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.20.1011.FRCuM2gd2IY#tbm=isch&q=portland+maine+fire+house
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1179&bih=622&q=portland+maine+city+hall&oq=portland+maine+city+&gs_l=img.1.0.0l3j0i30l2j0i24l5.3237.8953.0.11783.20.15.0.5.5.0.122.995.14j1.15.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.20.1011.FRCuM2gd2IY#tbm=isch&q=portland+maine+shops
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1179&bih=622&q=portland+maine+city+hall&oq=portland+maine+city+&gs_l=img.1.0.0l3j0i30l2j0i24l5.3237.8953.0.11783.20.15.0.5.5.0.122.995.14j1.15.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.20.1011.FRCuM2gd2IY#tbm=isch&q=portland+maine+waterfront
Portland is indeed a splendid city with many appealing amenities. While the city proper is only 66,000 folks the surrounding metropolitan area must have close to a half million souls, now. Settled in the early Seventeenth century, the city has deep roots and strong regional ties. There are many financial service businesses headquartered there as well as B&M baked beans, but the big financial driver is the Portland-Montreal oil pipeline.(Not exactly a Davis kind of business)
There is a vitality, most noticeable to me, of culture and lively arts that one misses in Davis. Does it make up for the weather?
No, but the next time I play the Port City stage or the older, but well refurbished, Merrill Auditorium, I will lament the absence of their equals in my region. (yeah,yeah, Mondavi Center. blah blah) A Lovely town, but Davis can’t get there.
;>)/
Frankly: “The West Davis Innovation Center pulled out primarily because of Measure R and the control it provides land preservation special interests, and their partners in crime… those change-averse voters.”
DP: “dic did not leave because of measure r. we didn’t fire rob white because of measure r. we look like a bunch of dufuses firing a respected leader like rob white and replacing him with a political hack like diane parro. that’s what kills us. we are about to flush a golden opportunity down the toilet.”
DIC knew about the existence of Measure R and its difficulties but nevertheless made the decision to offer up a proposal for a wonderful innovation park that will be a real asset to the community, and spent $600,000 doing it. Suddenly the Chief Innovation Officer Rob White and the city goes completely silent on innovation park messaging to the community. No more articles in the Vanguard or Davis Enterprise by Rob White about innovation parks. The city staff/city manager remain silent. Rumors float out there in the ether that the city believes the innovation parks are nothing but a “pipe dream”. DIC puts its project on hold. Ultimately citizens find out the CIO Rob White was let go by the city without explanation. Now who is to blame for DIC putting their project on hold? Measure R? I don’t think so.
you nailed it right there.
Terrorists would be ineffective without their weapons. But their weapons don’t actually do any harm without the terrorist.
Sorry for the extreme analogy in response to your point that Measure R is not to blame, but it is the first one to come to mind.
Of course Measure R is to blame. It gives power to the no-change and land preservation activist/extremist leveraging the voting power of the uniformed and grumpy.
i think you have a point there about measure r being the tool (although interestingly it is incongruent with your view on guns), the point i think i and anon are trying to make is that there are people in the political system who are pulling strings in city hall right now who view it in their best interest to kill the innovation parks. and that is the real cause of its demise.
Measure R requires that these development go to ballot. These string-pulling politicians can manipulate the ballot dates. Otherwise we would have scheduled up or down votes.
it makes it easier to do – i agree. but they have ways to kill things without measure r.
Like they tended to do before Measure R?
“there are people in the political system who are pulling strings in city hall right now who view it in their best interest to kill the innovation parks”
Please elaborate.
the history of davis has been one of punctuated equilibrium so a council would be less growth oriented for a decade and then the next decade things exploded growth-wise. one of the hopes of measure r was to smooth out those peaks and valleys, but this last decade has been a bit unusual with the collapse of the housing market in 2008.
“Please elaborate.”
in the next week or two, dan wolk will announce for assembly. dirk is a former employee of dan’s mother and craig reynolds, lois wolk’s chief of staff and chief consultant. it’s obvious that dirk was brought on to smooth the way for dan’s run and he doesn’t want a controversial land use process to undercut it.
Not buying it. Dan is only one vote. He has also been consistently supportive of tech parks.
Even if your underlying theory is true, I don’t think Brazil can sandbag the process without the active support of two other council members.
so here’s the full picture as best as i can assemble it.
dirk doesn’t believe we need the innovation parks – he has told that to more than a few people who have told it to me.
so the council would have to override him
dan wants to be elected to assembly and doesn’t want to make waves
lucas never supported dic. he’s most closely aligned to the nishi folks but would probably support mace.
rochelle supported both
robb prefers dic to mric but would probably support mric.
brett prefers dic to mric but would problably not support mric.
there is also the rob white factor in this. it looks like dirk pushed him out and the council didn’t have three strong enough votes to override it with lucas, robb, and presumably dan supporting his outster.
where does that leave us? we have a city manager who doesn’t believe in the innovation parks and five councilmembers with varying degrees of support, two of whom are on the ballot next june and one of whom is already heading out the door.
given that the innovation center was going to take strong leadership, i don’t see it. at best i see three or four votes for mric and benign neglect.
Measure R – either directly or indirectly – pervades everything related to economic development throughout the entire city. It’s now part of our DNA. The argument that Measure R played no role in the complex decision making process leading up to the DIC decision is incorrect and misleading.
Agree that it pervades everything and is part of our DNA. Disagree that it played no role in the DIC decision and other decisions. See above.
CalAg, I am not understanding your logic. DIC spent $600,000 on its project proposal in spite of the Measure R hurdle it knew it had to overcome. It was not until the city seemed to withdraw its support of innovation parks (and I am not referring to the City Council) that DIC made the decision to put its proposal on hold. Think about it…
My guess (without any direct evidence) is that the city told them through back channels that they did not want two Measure R votes on the same ballot. In addition, there were numerous headwinds that they needed to overcome to be competitive (e.g. prior to their decision, the DIC almost certainly had access to the BAE studies that showed inadequate commercial demand and city-wide housing). What rational business would continue spending time and money trying to win a Measure R vote under these circumstances?
CalAg: You made my point for me! You said:
“My guess (without any direct evidence) is that the city told them through back channels that they did not want two Measure R votes on the same ballot...”
It is the city’s messaging that is the problem, not Measure R!
Anon: That logic is a little tortured. The city leadership not wanting to risk two or more Measure R votes on the same ballot is by definition a Measure R problem. Telling the applicant through back channels is not “messaging,” its “communication.”
“it would be reasonable for the City to establish phasing controls for hotel development”
That should go swimmingly.
DP: “lucas never supported dic.”
Not true!
I don’t think any of the current council opposed DIC.
not publicly anyway.
as i understand it, lucas is part of the gorup that is supporting nishi and opposed the innovation center in the northwest. this group has not publicly aired their opposition, but it’s there.
I would not presume to speak for Lucas. Please present evidence that Lucas is opposed to DIC. And yes there are SOME who want to see NISHI succeed at the expense of MIC. I do not believe Lucas is one of them, based on my knowledge of the situation.
i will readily acknowledge i don’t have hard evidence. what i know is based on what i have heard from people i trust. however, before you completely dismiss what i have to say, part of the problem is that there are a lot of back door deals going on. i heard for months that rob white was on his way out and by the time we had hard enough evidence, it was a done deal.
Recall that Frerichs was widely accused of tanking the proposed Mace 391 land exchange because his patron ( Saylor) did not want a tech park in Provenza’s district. Accordingly, he would have logically been a stronger proponent for DIC.
That being said, I agree that the primary agenda of Frerichs/Saylor may be Whitcomb’s Nishi project. The speculation that they view DIC as a threat to getting Nishi on the ballot, and were working against it behind the scenes, could have merit.
Another thought related to the demise of DIC – Krovoza was allegedly very vocal about his opinion that the community only had the tolerance for one successful Measure R vote, and that it was going to be Nishi under his stewardship.
DP: “i will readily acknowledge i don’t have hard evidence [that Lucas Frerichs is opposed to DIC].”
No you don’t. Based on what I know, your accusations in this case are FALSE, baseless, and pure gossip.
i suppose we will never know as dic is gone