Sunday Commentary: Legitimate Reasons to Oppose Russell Fields

Russell Fields previous iteration
Russell Fields
Russell Field and Howard Field

I am always struck by the discourse on land use in this town.  With every issue there are legitimate reasons to oppose or support a given project, but there are also excuses that are disguised as reasons as well.

The Vanguard is getting the sense from some sources that community pushback and other considerations will result in UC Davis dropping a proposal to redevelop Russell and Howard Fields along Russell Boulevard into student housing.

From my perspective this is not just a NIMBY-led opposition to building housing along Russell Blvd. Rather, I think there are several legitimate reasons to oppose housing in this particular location.

Let me be clear – the university has indeed fallen short on its historic commitment for on-campus housing.  The city is running at a vacancy rate of 0.2 percent and that was before there will be another 1000-student increase in enrollment this fall, with limited additional on-campus housing options.  And yes, I believe that the university should honor its commitment to house 90 percent of new students – and I would argue that is a low number.

At the same time, I do not believe that simply means we accept a university plan to put housing just anywhere.  While I am understanding of some arguments for that location – including close proximity to the downtown as well as the core area of campus – other considerations outweigh those advantages.

I neither live across the street from the university nor do I drive through that corridor each morning as I did for 15 years prior to moving to South Davis in 2012.  Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake to build housing there.

First, the fields are well utilized by intramural sports and also community members.

Second, they serve as a critical transition from the city to the university.  By putting up more three-story student housing along Russell, we risk turning the whole span from La Rue to A Street into a heavily urbanized corridor.

Third, I simply believe that there are better places to put high-density housing.  I have suggested three locations – West Village, south of Aggie Stadium, and at Nishi.

Fourth, while I am less concerned about traffic impacts from the housing – mostly because students will not be traveling into campus by car in the morning or flowing out at peak hours in the afternoon – there are concerns about the impacted intersection at Howard and Russell, not to mention potential impacts of putting the recreational fields out near West Village.

The bottom line for me, however, is just because I think the university needs to build more on-campus housing doesn’t oblige me to accept housing anywhere the university proposes.  The nice thing about UC Davis is that they do not suffer from a lack of land to build housing.

As I said, I simply believe there are better spots to put the housing, but, not only that, better ways to make the housing innovative.

While UC Davis has become more aspirational in recent years, I think UC Davis along with the city of Davis have missed the boat in terms of innovative new ways to provide housing, retail and economic development to the city and the university.

For example, when I see what USC Village has proposed to do on just 15 acres, I wonder why UC Davis is shooting so low.

Here is one description of the USC project: “With conveniences that include a full-service grocery store and 100,000-square-feet of additional retail, USC Village will have all the amenities and comforts of a town center for students and neighborhood families, set amid vibrant green spaces for open recreation. The retail planned for the USC Village include places for dining, entertainment, shopping, and evenings out with friends.”

One article, from the fall, wrote, “Imagine a bustling, welcoming residential community where Trojans can eat, sleep, study, play, dream, mingle and, above all, discover themselves. Picture inviting residence halls with private courtyards opening onto an inviting town square. A scholarly enclave churning with possibilities—outdoor concerts, poetry readings, street theater. A place where undergraduates can hang out with distinguished faculty outside the classroom.”

They added, “USC Village will bring this vision to life—and revolutionize the landscape of the university. This 1.25-million-square-foot, residential-retail center on the north side of the University Park Campus will feature a cluster of five-story residence halls encircling a grand plaza that will form the pinnacle of student life at USC. For up to 2,700 students each year, USC Village will be home away from home.”

Now USC itself is investing $650 million into the USC Village.

Think about that, on just 15 acres, they are housing 2700 students a year (same number as Poly Canyon Village on half the acreage), they are not going above five stories and they are providing a space for retail and amenities, as well as open space.

Yeah, $650 million is a lot of money, but the university would recoup that through the other activities in the space.  Build something like this on 30 acres that is housing 5500 students, and you not only have solved your student housing project, you do so in a way that pushes the university to new heights.

Someone this week accused me of thinking small with regard to housing along Russell – I just see the possibilities as far larger than a few three-story student housing buildings along an already useful portion of campus.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News City of Davis Housing Land Use/Open Space Vanguard at UC Davis

Tags:

152 comments

  1. “just because I think the university needs to build more on-campus housing doesn’t oblige me to accept housing anywhere the university proposes.”

    This is interesting. How far do you extend this concept of “David’s sphere of influence”?

     

    1. “How far do you extend this concept”

      It is an example of the arrogance of the activists of Davis who act as if they have the right to dictate how others use their land and resources. It is the characteristic that is at the heart of the ‘Davis Way’ and the root cause of our fiscal and social problems.

      1. Mark is back with more overblown anit-Davis hyperbole. No one is claiming to be able to dictate what the University will or will not do, but it is perfectly reasonable for the city to attempt to work with the University to further both parties’ interests.
         
        “its complicated” would be the relationship status for the University and the City.

        1. ” but it is perfectly reasonable for the city to attempt to work with the University to further both parties’ interests.”

          Yes, it certainly would have been, but the city has proven itself to be unreasonable, so that ship has sailed.

        2. Yes, it certainly would have been, but the city has proven itself to be unreasonable, so that ship has sailed.

          The City houses over 70% of the students at UCD.  Davis houses as many or more UC students than any other city in California. That is hardly a city that is being unreasonable.

        3. Berkeley is the only one thats close. Just look at the FOI request article David wrote about campus housing the other day and you can work backwards from those numbers  to see for yourself.

        4. Grok, do you have anything to back that up? I mean I agree just based on the numbers from the UC itself that David ran the other day the other campuses house more students (therefore the cities house less), but those numbers suggest Berkely is actually a little worse than Davis.

        5. Fair enough HF. I was basing it on the numbers I had pulled from US News and World reports and posted here a few weeks ago. I just looked and your right, the FOI numbers David Posted are inexplicably different than the US News numbers. I still think more Berkeley students commute, but I don’t have anything to back it up. In any case, it is clear that Davis houses more UC students than most other cities that have UC’s. I would also note Berkeley is more than twice the size of Davis.

  2. David,

    On numerous occasions you have advocated for more sales tax for Davis. This village would compete against Davis merchants and would, I believe, have a lower tax rate than shops in Davis. Not only would Davis not receive any new revenue but we may lose old revenue as well.

     

     

        1. Perhaps this revenue question is where we differ quielo. I first and foremost want the students to have access to a great University education at UCD including both affordable student housing and opportunities to take part in a robust campus life that includes a thriving IM sports program. That is why I believe the fields should be kept in a central location on campus so they are accessible to as many students as possible. That is also why I believe it is essential that the University build much more affordable student focused housing on campus. 

           
          I am not looking at the students as walking dollar signs here to be taken advantage of fill the city’s coffers. All I would ask is that they pay their fair share.

        2. I’m not going to tell someone they have to live on campus and then demand that they shop in town so we get revenue.

          Agreed. But they will probably come in to town sometimes and spend some money even with facilities on campus.

        3. Who’s demanding that they have to shop in town if they live on campus?  You’re just making up arguments here.  The city can entice people to shop in town.

        4. There are two issues . . . first, the incremental addition to the economy within the City Limits.  Second, the amount of sales tax revenue that the student spending within the City Limits will generate.

      1. entitled?

        Head scratching.  Is any city ever entitled to get anyone’s sales tax revenue, but it’s nice to have especially when we’re in the financial shape we’re in now.

        1. I guess I just don’t understand GD’s principles here. Almost everyday we are treated to an article about lack of revenues with an apocalyptic theme. Many of the problems ares structural and the time to fix them has passed as in the big box stores are already built and the age of building them is coming an end. Now is the time that large infrastructure projects are being commissioned and I am curious about the lack of interest on how the various options will impact city revenues.

          I don;t understand why there are lots of article about things we cannot do anything about and no consideration about what we can. From a city revenue POV it seems that Nishi and Russell fields are the best choices and West Village is far inferior.

    1. Not only would Davis not receive any new revenue

      Even if there are stores and restaurants on campus, the students will still come into Davis for shopping and entertainment sometimes. Perhaps there will not be as large an increase in tax revenue, but there would be an incremental increase.

      but we may lose old revenue as well.

      Seems pretty unlikely since the vast majority of students will still live in town.

  3. “I think there are several legitimate reasons to oppose housing in this particular location.”

    There are legitimate reasons to oppose housing at every location. So the housing shortage continues and the problems associated with it never get addressed.

    1. There are legitimate reasons to oppose housing at every location. So the housing shortage continues and the problems associated with it never get addressed.

      That is a complete misanthropic mis-characterization of what is being argued. David, many commenters and Friends of Russell Blvd. Fields are urging the University build more housing in other locations, but that the valuable existing level playing fields are a better use of the precious resource of land at the core of campus and the intersection of the campus with the city.

  4. “With conveniences that include a full service grocery store and 100,000 sq feet of additional retail…will have all the ammenities of a town center…for dining, entertainment, shopping and evenings out”.

    If the implication is that this is a model for Davis, this is crazy. I guess there would be no need for students to shop at Ace, Target, Trader Joes, Safeway, or at any other downtown business except maybe the bars and nightclubs. This would be a massive drop in the already paltry amount of sales tax revenue that Davis gets compared to surrounding communities. But hey, Davisites can just vote for another parcel tax (with a senior exemption) to make up for the loss.

    I would not be surprised if UCD does in fact do something like this. They could easily contract out the building and management and get a nice revenue stream out of it. It would be a pretty logical response to all the local opposition to building any new student housing any closer to town than the Pedrick fruit and vegie market.

    1. Maybe the solution is to do nothing other than pass parcel taxes.  Soon this town will consist solely of mini-dorm owning senior citizens and UCD student renters.  The seniors can exempt their primary property and pass the tax on to the students.

    2. WesC – Your fears are overblown. Even if the University manages to build out housing for 50% of its student population in the next 10 years, existing Davis housing will not sit empty. Davis is a vibrant thriving community and it will continue to be for years to come.

      Yes there are revenue issues, but where student housing is built is neither going to solve nor exacerbate the problem.

    3. The other point to remember is that this village may have lower prices as they would not have to charge Yolo/Davis sales taxes so they draw people away from shopping in Davis.

  5. The NIMBY’s and BANANA’s have painted themselves into a corner.  They demanded that UCD build housing and when UCD proposes to do just that they say “whoa, wait a minute, not there”.

    1. They demanded that UCD build housing and when UCD proposes to do just that they say “whoa, wait a minute, not there”.

      Yes, when the University released plans to destroy the much loved and heavily used Russell Blvd fields at the very end of the “input period” of the Long Range Development Plan process and right before spring finals (thus minimizing any opportunity for students to learn of the plans) Davisites said “Whoa, wait a minute here.” 

      The university can build taller on the other proposed sites and easily house the 1,000 students proposed for Russell fields. The University even has more sites they can build beyond that to house even more students.

        1. There are also plenty of grass fields all over the campus that can take the place of the Russell fields.

          Not true. No other fields are as centrally located. 70% of the students live off campus, and of those the majority live in Central, East and South Davis. For all of those students the Russell Blvd. fields are far easier to get to than the fields that are being proposed to replace them on the far side of West Village.

          Further, with the massive increase in student enrollment planned for UCD, more fields will be needed, not less.

        2.  

          Grok – you destroy much of your remaining objectivity credibility demonstrating so much hypocrisy opposing this UCD-built housing.  And your dismissal of the city’s fiscal problems add to your growing credibility problems.

          Frankly (because I am), I no longer trust that you would be supportive of any significant development.

          The same is true for several others posting opposition to this latest of several attempts to actually solve critical problems in our city.

        3. I no longer trust that you would be supportive of any significant development.

          Well I have been posting on here for several days advocating for 10 story buildings built for student housing on campus, but maybe your not paying attention.

        1. Frankly

          NIMBYism is just a manifestation of a selfish-human personality disorder.”

          I believe that the DSM V categorizes it the same as taxation abhorrence syndrome.

      1. Odin, I respectfully disagree.  I believe that, like so many human nature patterns, NIMBYism exists in its hosts in an inactive state, waiting for a conspiracy of events to activate it.  For some human beings that activation happens when your own backyard is affected.  For others the activation radius is much broader.

  6. I have suggested three locations – West Village, south of Aggie Stadium, and at Nishi.

    South of Aggie Stadium would be a very short-sighted location for housing.  That’s in the rapidly-expanding Vet Med district, and there’s only one parcel of significant size there that’s not developed.  Cutting off Vet Med from future expansion isn’t a good idea from my perspective.

    1. “Cutting off Vet Med from future expansion isn’t a good idea from my perspective.”

      Agreed. David’s suggestions are another example of the futility of trying to dictate to the University on planning issues. We simply do not understand their multitude of demands and goals so our ‘ideas’ are at best uninformed.

      Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems, not trying to dictate to others how to fix theirs.

      1. Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems. – M. West

        Building apartments on the Russell fields will create problems for the city.

        The large zip car parking area in the proposed apartments on Russell will have traffic impacts on Russell. Such a rental car facility in the central campus could be very heavily used.

        Russell will be transformed into a urban corridor. Lacking the open space provided by the fields thus dramatically changing the character of the town.

        Students who currently use the centrally located fields on Russell and A street will instead use centrally located Davis park facilities.

        1. Russell will be transformed into a urban corridor.

          Russell is already an urban corridor.  It’s not a relaxing place to walk, no one sits out on their porch to watch the world go by, it’s a major transportation route.

        2. Russell is already an urban corridor.  It’s not a relaxing place to walk, no one sits out on their porch to watch the world go by, it’s a major transportation route. -JFrame

          On the part of Russell by Russell fields there are regularly people on the front lawns in front of the houses and the fields are heavily used for a wide range of recreation activities event though it is also a major (for Davis) transportation route.

           

        3. Building apartments on the Russell fields will create problems for the city.

          No, building high density student housing on that property solves problems that you yourself consistently trumpet… That UCD is not doing enough of its share of providing student housing.

          The only real “problem” is that it upsets you and other resident NIMBYs.  That helps me be more supportive of the project.

        4. Yes, but they’re all playing beer pong. -JF

          I appreciate that you admit people do currently use the lawns on Russell unlike your earlier statement. Just because they don’t sit alone on their porch with a nice Chardonnay doesn’t make their choice of front yard activity less valid. But the real problem with your statement is its more of the typical anti-student rhetoric so common in Davis.  For the Most part students are hard working, studious and relatively quiet. The activities that happen on the lawns are not limited to beer pong. In fact very soon these lawns will be full of all of the silly songs and cheers and other Fall rush activities. – all part of the atmosphere of a college town.

          1. You seem to be lacking a sense of humor.
            The houses facing Russell Field are mostly fraternity houses. “Hard working” — maybe. “Studious” — possibly. “Relatively quiet”? No.

      2. Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems, not trying to dictate to others how to fix theirs.”

        This conveniently ignores the fact that much of the city’s housing problems are the direct effect of the failure of the university to house even the number of students that they had promised to house.

         

        1.  

          Tia Will
          September 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm
          “Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems, not trying to dictate to others how to fix theirs.”

          This conveniently ignores the fact that much of the city’s housing problems are the direct effect of the failure of the university to house even the number of students that they had promised to house.

          Tia has this completely right.

  7. Biddlin

    Yes, it certainly would have been, but the city has proven itself to be unreasonable, so that ship has sailed.”

    I completely disagree. It is never too late to move to a more collaborative process. I am quite sure that administrators and planners from both the city and the university are adults who are capable of finding ways to work together rather than to continue with the past intransigence of both sides.