Last week we had an extended conversation without much resolution about the need for and location of new growth. The conversation emerged out of comments about the revised Trackside proposal, which has scaled down from six to four stories, but continues to generate neighborhood concern.
To infuse some new thoughts into the discussion, I was reading an op-ed this weekend which talks about the increasing congestion and traffic at intersections.
The writer acknowledges the need for development but describes the downside of doing it wrong. They write: “Now Davis needs development and affordable housing, but we also need to recognize that just adding more development will not add to our quality of life, but could detract from it instead.”
“Density isn’t the issue,” they write. “It’s where it is placed that determines whether it is a positive addition to the health of a community or an incremental lessening of its quality of life.”
They come out against Sterling: “The proposed Sterling apartment complex on Fifth Street will forever change an already overworked intersection at Fifth and Pole Line, and its constant stream of student bicycles crossing town from one end to the other at all hours will affect everybody and everything.”
“Development and density, if handled logically, aren’t the problems — incrementalism and precedent are,” they write. “Five- and six-story buildings help us how? Adding to existing congestion helps the town in what way?”
Further: “It’s not a question of whether we need development; it’s where we need it. The proposed projects are in the wrong places. Were their locations based on need, or on real estate prices? Opportunity for profit, by itself, isn’t wrong, but disregard for its consequences are.”
Finally, “We don’t have to stop them; we just need to consider the most appropriate location according to how they will fit in with the existing neighborhood. After all, it’s the residents that define the nature of the town, its life and its reputation — not its buildings.”
While these are interesting thoughts, there are problems here, that go back to the conversation last week.
First, I think it is important to address this issue: “Were their locations based on need, or on real estate prices?” There is a third option, that these locations were based on the availability of the land for new purposes.
Let us explore four locations quickly. Nishi – vacant parcel that is only modestly conducive to farming due to size and shape. It is next to the university and in walking distance from downtown. The downside is that Richards Blvd. is already heavily congested. This parcel makes a lot of sense – hence the reason it has been eyed in all major planning documents and studies – but it has serious challenges.
Trackside – under-utilized parcel that even the neighbors argue should be re-purposed. They just don’t support six stories there or even four.
Sterling – when FamiliesFirst imploded, there was, according to many, a search for comparable uses of the existing structure. But, finding none, the need for student housing has clearly pushed this available parcel into a different direction.
Lincoln40 – this would fall into the category of a largely under-utilized parcel, close to campus.
While the author makes interesting points about location, he seems to overlook several drivers here. First, there is a clear need for some sorts of housing – particularly student housing. Second, availability of the location is a major overlooked driver of the location. If the land is not available for redevelopment, there can be none.
Third is cost. The demise of RDA (redevelopment agencies) is a serious limitation for the city. The private money needed to finance major efforts in the core or elsewhere is not sufficient to overcome huge costs.
A final note here before moving on concerns the author’s points, “Development and density, if handled logically, aren’t the problems” and “Density isn’t the issue. It’s where it is placed that determines whether it is a positive addition to the health of a community or an incremental lessening of its quality of life.”
His point is: “Already well-used roads have experienced more traffic because of development along their roads. The Cannery has changed driving on Covell and it’s only partially completed.”
But he never resolves to offer an answer as to how to avoid these problems of new development. Nor does he address perhaps the biggest problem here – we have old infrastructure – old roads that were designed during a time when we had far fewer people in this town.
Is there any location where new development isn’t going to come in conflict with old roadway design?
There is another problem, in that we have used the problem of location as justification to do very little for the last two decades. Inaction is leading to problems as well – more students are jamming into neighborhoods and mini-dorms.
The increase in students has led to a lower vacancy rate, fewer available single-family homes, more congestion, noise and parking. While we can certainly blame the university for increasing students without housing, we also have to blame ourselves for failing to heed the warning of these conditions before they became serious problems.
I agree with the conclusions in the op-ed: “We must remember that what we do in one part of town affects the entire town. We can’t afford to forget that ‘we all live downstream.’ The water is getting warmer and we are not paying attention.”
What I think we need to consider is whether there is any place where we can grow without impacts, and also what the impacts are of no more growth.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I read the same letter, in the Enterprise. Although I agreed with the author regarding many points, he/she got it wrong, regarding density.
If there’s going to be a push for more density (via zoning changes), the question becomes “how dense” (structural density – e.g., units, floor space per given geographic area). Leaving density entirely out of the equation (while focusing solely on demand measurements) is guaranteed to result in a congested/crowded city, impacting all infrastructure and amenities. This may affect some “at risk” areas more than others, but it will also impact the entire city.
Regarding Sterling, the taxpayer-supported seller may be holding out for the highest price (based on speculative zoning). If the property was sold as is, with no expectation of zoning change, the price would likely be quite different (and perhaps a more appropriate use found long ago, which wouldn’t require destruction of the existing facility). It should also be noted that the property is currently zoned industrial, so a rezone to high-density residential may represent a loss of potential commercial development, as well.
These challenges are a primary reason that some have encouraged the University to simultaneously plan for more housing on campus for its own needs, as it pursues a goal of increasing enrollment.
EMQ/Families First management recently confirmed that they simply listed the Sterling property with a realtor, that the property has never been advertised for sale, and that not a single non-profit, or any other entity, was ever contacted about purchase of the property.
It was also confirmed that there are no loans against the property. The goal is to make as much money as possible on the sale of the Davis property to pay off mortgages on other properties in the Bay area.
The out of county non-profit wants to sell to an out of state development company which hopes to make lots of money building the biggest building they can talk the CC into, and it will then be sold to some other entity for long term investment.
Sources for your assertions?
Expect not…
tj:
Where/how did you learn about this? (I’d like to cite the source, if/when others challenge me if I repeat this statement – especially regarding the lack of contact with other non-profits.)
That op-ed was nonsensical and full of myths and fallacies.
I am guessing it was written by a senior citizen that does not get out much, and when he/she does, does not really think too much about the cause and effect of what he/she finds irritating about a place.
Coming into work this morning around 8:40 AM driving east from Far-West Davis I noted a crush of cars heading west down Russel Blvd. Hundreds of cars that needed more than one or two light changes to get through the intersections. It was perplexing because there is really nothing in Davis that morning traffic should be heading to… except, UCD and Sacramento State classes. K-12 traffic should have mostly subsided by then (classes start at 8:30 AM). And those people living in Davis that work for UCD or that work out of town going west toward the Bay Area.
The problem the writer was talking about is/was congestion. He mentioned the East Coast he came from. The East Coast is the epitome of congestion. It is a small territory with much higher population density.
The increased traffic the writer was lamenting is not from development in Davis. There was been little of it. The increased traffic is from increased population density… more people in Davis and in the region needing to travel on roads that have not grown in size, numbers or capacity-handling design changes.
I was in Boise this weekend with my family. We noted how nice the vibe was and how easy it was to travel by car to all the places we visited. The downtown on Friday and Saturday was hopping, but there was plenty of street parking and the number of people milling about was what I would call perfect.
But Boise is sprawling.
It is choice that can be made.
Either you grow out, expand, decrease population density so everyone is not on-top of each other and lament that nebulous, and largely emotional, feeling of sprawl, or you can reject peripheral development, demand high population density and then start licking your wounds of impacts from congestion.
The problem in Davis is all the fanciful thinking of foolish people. They have traveled to old Europe and note the lifestyle and are trying to import with the policy idiocy of artificial scarcity.
But let’s make a list of what is different between life and experience in old Europe versus Davis. For example, the writer talked about how long it was taking to travel from one place to the other. Now really think about that in a place where there are fewer cars and you have access to copious public transportation. How long will it take you to travel from point A to point B using public transportation? It will take you longer… often times much longer.
But the foolish people are not even demanding investments in more public transportation. They are instead rejecting development that would improve roads and expand the footprint of the city. They reject peripheral retail forcing everyone living in town to have to travel to the town center for shopping.
And then these foolish people absurdly blame too much development as the cause.
Foolish Davis voters are creating their own misery. Unfortunately I am impacted by their foolishness too, otherwise I would just laugh at them from afar.
The word “fool” is a very good one to define what is going on in Davis.
+1
Thank you, Frankly.
Also: yet again the perception of inconvenience by the already housed (the writer basically seems to treat Davis as a second/retirement home?) is taking precedent over the very serious need of renters who either cannot afford Davis or cannot find vacancies here. Gross.
David:
Two questions for you:
Why do you keep referring to “fewer available single-family homes”, when so many are being built (e.g., at the Cannery, Chiles Ranch, Grande, and soon at West Village)? (Also, new live-work units nearing completion at 5th and Pena, and an increased-density affordable housing development recently approved near that intersection – although I don’t know if they’re apartments.)
Why do you view the demise of RDA as a “problem”? Even without it, developers are interested in redeveloping Trackside and Sterling (even though that would result in destruction of a pretty nice multi-building existing facility, as discussed above).
One question for you, Ron… how many units have been built at Grande or Chiles Ranch? or even had a building permit pulled?
hpierce:
Perhaps my statement should have been reworded, to note that some units are “being built” as we speak (e.g., at the Cannery), while others (e.g., Chiles Ranch, Grande, and apparently – West Village) are imminent. But, the overall point remains the same.
If “imminent”, as in by the end of this decade, you are likely to be somewhat correct… if you understood how many of those “imminent” unit compares to current housing stock, as a percentage, you would see it is trifling…
My overall point remains the same… you know not of which you speak… the problem exists NOW… and you warp language and facts to achieve your “point”… you are not alone…
What density IS appropriate, or will you play the “I’m thinking of a number…” game, where the community has to guess what is “acceptable”?… surely a person who portends (pretends?) to have “facts”, and who apparently has strong views of both density and City ‘footprint’, you should share your ‘vision’… should we build a “wall” to keep newbies from arriving?
You are not alone as to those decrying any proposal, yet unwilling to propose reasonable alternatives. Except the ostrich thing, and then sniping on any proposals to deal with true needs. Either we need more density, grow the footprint, and/or ban new residents, student or otherwise. Push on a balloon on one side, and what happens to the rest of the balloon? Do you truly even care?
hpierce:
The Cannery is under construction, Chiles Ranch is imminent, and probably Grande. From reports (on the Enterprise?), I understand that single-family dwellings at West Village is also imminent.
Do you dispute this? Again, David stated that the availability of single-family dwellings is decreasing. Do you agree with that?
Regarding ever-increasing density, are you stating that this should not be considered in some manner?
Ron: Under an idealized scenario, how many SFH’s would be built? Hpierce raises an important point that they haven’t been built yet and so the current supply may be dropping right now. But you haven’t provided a number as to how many SFH’s have been converted from single families to mini-dorms in the last decade – anecdotally I suspect that number is huge and you’ve glossed right over it.
Chamber Fan:
Again, the supply of single-family housing is increasing as we communicate.
I think we’d have to establish the definition of “available”, as well. (I’m pretty sure that there’s some salesmen at the Cannery right now, who can tell you what it means.)
Regarding the number of “conversions”, I don’t know. Also, is there a difference between renting to a family, vs. students? Is one preferable to the other, in terms of “meeting demand”? (Is either one necessarily a “bad” thing?) If someone rents to students, does that meet the definition of a conversion to a “mini-dorm”?
I suspect that most in Davis are far more concerned about legislated, permanent and significant changes in structural density (e.g., zoning changes), vs. individual “conversions”.
“Again, the supply of single-family housing is increasing as we communicate.”
That’s an assertion on your part. Show me the numbers.
Chamber Fan:
Really? You’re denying that the Cannery is under construction?
I think the problem is you’re only accounting for one side of the equation – not how many houses have been removed from the supply due to lack of other student housing options. My comment in my column this morning was focused on that. I consider the addition to the supply finite and one-time. Not to mention uncertain in terms of timing. Hence overall, looking at a two decade perspective back to 2000, I think my comment was accurate – supply is dwindling and despite a few small projects, will likely continue to do so.
David:
You’re now putting forth a number of qualifications regarding your statement, and without sufficient evidence to do so.
“Removing them from supply” is another way of saying that some housing is being used/changed to meet demand.
Again, I’d encourage anyone to go talk with the salesmen at the Cannery, if you believe that there isn’t housing available for sale. (Or, perhaps any real estate office.)
Given that my initial statement was: “The increase in students has led to a lower vacancy rate, fewer available single-family homes, more congestion, noise and parking. “. I disagree. In fact, I would argue that the increase of students have led to fewer available single-family homes is a stand alone statement that is accurate on its face and without further qualification. You are trying to argue that net housing is now increasing (which I dispute) but as I re-read my sentence, that wasn’t my point.
David:
Well then, you’re ignoring the new supply.
BUT the point of the sentence was the impact of the student housing shortage and in absolute terms, they are decreasing the supply of housing.
David:
I don’t know that “conversions” (which help meet demand, regardless) are outpacing the increased construction (e.g., at the Cannery). I don’t think you (or anyone) has offered proof of this. In any case, do you advocate even more single-family housing than is currently under construction or imminently planned? (If so, I’d definitely categorize you as a “pro-development” commenter.)
The bottom line is that there are single-family houses under construction (and available for sale), right now. And, if you go to any real estate office (and/or search the web), I’m pretty sure that you’ll find even more single-family houses for sale.
I keep trying to sign off, but the usual gang of pro-development types keeps challenging me (sometimes with some pretty questionable statements, truth be told).
Oh, well. If you all think that there’s no consequences from pursuing endless increases in density, I don’t know what else to say.
David – I don’t think this is a fair way to put this. I think what you are trying to say is that demand is increasing faster than supply.
I would certainly be interested to see some actual numbers on the impact.
I’m not sure that’s actually what he’s saying. I think what he’s saying is that even if supply is increasing, mini-dorms are cutting into the supply.
“even if supply is increasing, mini-dorms are cutting into the supply.”
Mini-dorms will continue to spread through town as long as the supply of apartments is restricted. Houses (and their neighborhoods) designed for two adults and 2-3 kids are now filled with 6-8 young adults, many of whom possess a car. Those who have not experienced this in their neighborhood have just been lucky so far. Every time a SFH is filled with students in this manner, the number of homes available to young families is diminished by one. Just look at the demographic shift over the past ten to fifteen years and you will see the impact of this phenomenon.
Yes Ron,
I fully dispute your statements (see your 10/24, ~ 1 pm post).
Unless your concept of “imminent” is within the next 1-2 years.
Geologically, 100,000 years equals imminent…
hiperce:
According to this link, the first 50 homes at West Village are scheduled to go on sale in 2018:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-build-first-50-new-homes-faculty-and-staff-west-village-2018
Here’s a link regarding the status of several developments, including Grande and Chiles Ranch. (The article stated that they “could” break ground in summer, so I guess it’s delayed.) I believe I’ve seen billboards regarding Chiles Ranch.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/spring-finds-cannery-selling-fouts-breaking-ground-high-value-resale-homes-on-market/
hpierce:
Actually, I haven’t passed by any of the three Fouts sites recently, so perhaps they’re all still on track to open in 2017, as the article above (from April, 2016) states. (But, I seem to recall driving by the Chiles site in summer, and only observed that the lot had been cleared. I didn’t look that closely to see the extent.)
In any case, I’d say that the developments discussed in my comments meet the definition of “imminent”.
About the author:
Don – yes, I saw that as well. I suppose this provides them with perspective, regarding periodically witnessing and comparing the changes that have occurred since that time. (As opposed to someone who witnesses it on a daily basis, and may not notice incremental changes as discussed by the author.)
I have considerable perspective on Fifth Street. For example, Rancho Yolo used to be next to an open field. The post office really increased traffic at that intersection, as did the DMV. That overpass into South Davis? That was really controversial. I remember a certain council member talking about how many people were going to die because of the increase in auto fumes. And, of course, there weren’t 800+ apartments in the area as there are now.
Traffic has really increased on Fifth Street over the last 3 – 4 decades. That’s what happens when a city grows. Fortunately, it’s a large, wide street at this end, and the intersection is built to accommodate the traffic increase — far more readily than, say, Richards Blvd.
and there was many a time in recent months…when it was hardly possible to get from my office near the corner of Hutchison and LaRue….construction on fifth, 2nd and Covell…and sometimes even 8th …all at the same time.
Impossible to go I-80 at most times of day either…
what used to take 5 minutes is now gridlock most everywhere….many, many students ( you can tell them by the fancy new cars their “low income” parents buy for them) – no longer ride bikes or take the unitrans….
the faculty in our department mostly live in West or Central or North Davis…and generally ride bikes… and the staff mostly live out in NN Davis…aka Woodland or Dixon…and we have the old beaters…..
My house, for only a few more weeks, that is until after the election it will stop being my primary residence, is in SoDa…. the place of toxins, toxic oil spills aka gas stations, dump sites, fast food and commercial crop dusted farmland…now housing developments…
Here’s the fundamental problem with the rationale of many who oppose current rental housing proposals. If you object to housing at one site due to the increased traffic or density, you are simply proposing that the traffic and density be moved to some other site. So when we read this:
… then the author is saying the bike and auto traffic should be at some other intersection. If you don’t want the traffic and density of students and others living on Russell Field, then you are saying they should live at some other site. That may be out of town, in which case they will add to the congestion at the Richards Blvd underpass. Or it may cause more students to move into residences and cause more homeowners to convert their homes to mini-dorms, in which case they will add to the congestion and density there.
It’s just shifting the consequences of the growth of the city and the university.
Don: Not necessarily. Traffic coming in to the campus from anywhere along Highway 113 does not travel through most of the town (or through the Richards underpass).
And, there is essentially no “commute traffic” from those living on campus (including, I suspect, West Village). Seems likely that they would not drive from there.
It is not likely that the entire city would be converted to “mini-dorms” (which are preferable to “maxi-dorms”, regardless).
There are already huge numbers of houses being rented by students. There will be more.
Those living on campus have to shop and eat somewhere. There’s plenty of traffic along LaRue and Russell due to the students who live in the vicinity.
Traffic coming in along Highway 113 increases the congestion there.
You’re just moving the problem, Ron.
Don:
No – I’m just saying that there’s consequences when advocating for open-ended increases in density, without considering “how much” structural density there should be. It’s a common-sense consideration (given the limited amount of land available in the city), and is a key question when advocating changes in planning and zoning.
Encouraging an open-ended increase in density (impacting neighborhoods and the city as a whole, and resulting in a daily commute through the city) is not a particularly appealing planning method.
Until the University responds, there are options for those living in nearby communities besides driving (e.g., Yolobus). Some staff members are likely already taking advantage of that option. Perhaps eventually Unitrans would expand service.
And again, I think some on the Vanguard are disregarding the significant amount of development under construction or imminent (including some affordable housing on 5th Street, which was recently approved and densified in the process).
You’re advocating for changes that would permanently change the nature and livability of the city. At some point, ever-increasing density is not the “answer”.
If apartments aren’t built, the human density in current residential neighborhoods will continue to increase as houses are converted to higher-density rental.
The university has responded. Ridership on public transit is very low. The overwhelming majority of commuters choose to drive. Unitrans is not likely to expand outside the city limits. Yolobus doesn’t serve Solano County. Public transit is definitely an area local officials may wish to focus on, but there are geographic and funding issues that are obstacles to that. Expansion of public transit could help, but clearly won’t take care of most of the increased numbers of commuters into Davis.
You’re just moving the problem again.
Don:
There’s a lot of assumptions in your statement, above.
Regarding density in general, “human density” is ultimately dependent upon structural density (e.g., zoning, floor space).
Regarding public transit, you’ve made a lot of assumptions, as well.
I would argue that your earlier (stated) concerns regarding re-striping of the lanes (and your ability to park trucks) in front of your business is ultimately related to density, as well. (And again, I’m not saying this to “single you out”, or suggest anything other than what I’ve stated.)
I think we’re just going to have to “disagree to disagree” on this one. But, it’s still difficult for me to believe that anyone would argue for increasing density, without asking how dense a given neighborhood should ultimately be (including all impacts on that neighborhood, and the city as a whole).
No I haven’t. We have the data about use of public transit. I didn’t post it, but I’d be happy to link to the reports.
Actually, Ron, you are singing me out, and I wish you would stop this crap. Seriously. You post anonymously and then repeatedly single me out. And in this instance, it doesn’t even make sense.
Don:
Regarding public transit, I believe that some staff members are already using Yolobus to travel to campus. However, as you’ve pointed out, more can probably be done to improve service (and discourage parking on or near campus).
Regarding “singling you out”, again I’m just noting the concerns that you’ve previously shared, on the Vanguard. If I were in your position, I’d probably handle the trucks the same way you do (especially since it seems that the city has provided businesses with “de facto” permission to park trucks in traffic lanes). However, I’ve never liked the practice by any business, since it impacts drivers and bicyclists (and becomes more of a concern, as density increases). I bring it up here, because the concern that you cited is related to density. If Sterling is approved, it will also likely provide further justification for additional lane reduction to accommodate additional bicycle traffic along Fifth Street, between L and Pole Line. (You cited concerns regarding re-striping of the lanes, and your ability to park trucks as described.) I don’t know why you have a negative reaction to me pointing this out, and the relationship to density.
Unbelievable.
Finally – something we can agree on! (Although from opposite points of view.)
Don, Ron does not post anonymously. What made you think he does?
actually, the only way to get to campus from Soda these days at “typical commute times” is now through town…
We should block Richards to all but pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency vehicles and delivery trucks during only selected hours..
Then get Park and ride at all other interchanges…and trams to shuttle people between…
That interchange at Russell/tunnel should only be for local and olive drive and to Soda…not into town
A New interchange is needed between the Mace and current Richards…
Yeah, right… where would such an interchange be located? Suggest looking at an aerial map… that ship sailed years ago (~ 1990)… the property acquistion to do that would make the cost of the physical improvements pale in comparison. CalTrans will only consider new interchanges at least a mile apart… so, that pretty much leaves an extension of Drummond basically destroying the Bike/Ped OC, or a redo of the Pole Line OC, or somewhere in between those two… please note recreational MJ use is still awaiting a vote on Nov 8.
Or is another mind-altering drug in play?
regarding “singling out”…the others should be happy…no one gets moderated more than me. be thankful I exist …ha ha
“there is essentially no “commute traffic” from those living on campus (including, I suspect, West Village). Seems likely that they would not drive from there.” West village is a long ride on a cold rainy day. Why not build the dorms along Russell which is close to services (drug&grocery) and also close to downtown and classes. Turning Russell into a bike/pedestrian mall from “B” to Sycamore with a car crossing at Anderson would go a long ways toward relieving traffic.
West Village is closer to the central campus than most student apartments in Davis. It is a very reasonable bike ride, but for those that don’t want to ride from there, Unitrans bus V is a quick ride to either the health science campus or the Silo.
If it is a cold rainy night, and I unexpectedly needed a tampon, I would be much better in Davis where there are stores or anywhere except West Village.
From Davis apartments you have access to stores and services as you would along Russell, or at NISHI for that matter. I was down at the market a couple of weeks ago where some people were trying to convince me that sticking students in the middle of nowhere was a good idea. It was a little like a scene from MacBeth.
West Village already has The Hub Market that is open until 8pm, so there is actually a closer and more convenient place to buy your tampon than for many student apartments in Davis. Once West Village is further built out I would expect the store to extend their hours and for more amenities to be built.
Exactly, the Rite-Aid is open until midnight and is a real store that carries all the popular brands. TJ’s has lot’s of stuff people like and there are actual restaurants in the same center.
I had the same discussion with the [edited] women at the market. They want to put the students in the south forty with no access to services and demand they live the car free, bagless lifestyle, that [edited] they imagine that other people (but not themselves) should live.
[moderator] edited. No disparaging characterizations, please
Anyone we might all know?
BP, not sure who they were as I did not ask for names.
It just sounded so familiar.
[moderator] edited. No disparaging characterizations, please
Point of information please. Accusing people of criminal acts, which happens often here on TV, is not “disparaging”? Correct or no?
[moderator: you used derogatory nouns and adjectives to describe the women you talked to. You disparaged them. Please don’t do that. ]
Quielo, you seem quite agitated about your ability to get a tampon late at night.
I do of course feel sympathy for your situation, but your apparent demand that all student housing be built within 2-3 blocks from a 24 hour pharmacy is just not reasonable.
I have talked to people who live in West Village and it generally sounds like an over priced but over all nice place to live. Even the UCD planners say they can do better than that to offer affordable apartments.
Grok, it’s much more reasonable to build housing near services where land is available than to demand housing be built far away from services with some vague hope that services will be provided someday.
quielo, what is far fetched is your interpretation that West Village is far away from services, its not. It is a short bike ride to central campus or the University Mall. It is closer to services than some other parts of Davis and is closer to the core campus than most student apartments. Further, there are already some services out there.
You also seem to have fundamental misunderstanding of how new development works. Its not usually the services that are built out first. Housing gets built, and then services are added.
Your suggestion that there is land available closer in is at least partly true. The proposed LRDP includes all of the following: The Cowel building will be redeveloped as apartments, Regan hall will be redeveloped as dorms, a new dorm is being built at Trecero, Orchard Park will be redeveloped as apartments, the area with green houses across from the domes while have apartments built and Solano park and several surrounding areas will be redeveloped. All together fairly extensive new housing closer in to the center of campus.
Further, UCD is currently planning on only building 3-4 stories at any of these locations, there is certainly the ability to build somewhat taller at all of the locations, and some places possibly considerably taller. Regan Hall for example would be a good place for 6-10 story dorms. Building taller, but maintaining usable open space like the fields along Russell allows for housing more students, and maintains a more livable environment.
“You also seem to have fundamental misunderstanding of how new development works”
How kind. However in my ignorance it seemed unwise to move somewhere with no services. I’m sure that everyone else will see the wisdom of living in a cornfield hoping that the infrastructure will someday be built in order to preserve the views of the bourgeois of Davis. Little people have to know their place.
Well quielo, living in a cornfield without services is not really what we are talking about here. We are talking about living in West Village where there are already services. A place that is closer to classes than most student housing in Davis and a very short bike ride to the University Mall.
“We are talking about living in West Village where there are already services. A place that is closer to classes than most student housing in Davis and a very short bike ride to the University Mall.”
Translate it into Mandarin and send it to Chinese students. No one else will believe it.
West Village will house a large number of students, and that’s great. But it won’t resolve our current apartment shortage, and it won’t house all of the projected enrollment growth. It doesn’t eliminate the need for rental housing in town.
There is still a lot more housing to be built at West Village, and there is a lot of additional land that could be built on out there. For example, the new LRDP removes 20 Acres of West Village from planed student housing development. I am certainly not going to argue that West Village is the only answer, but West Village is part of the answer.
But that won’t cover all of the increased enrollment planned, much less the current shortage of apartments.
You know that. I don’t know why we keep having to go over this. But once again:
The university has not promised to do anything about the current shortage. They have promised to cover 90% of the increase in enrollment projected.
That leaves us slightly worse off than we are today, once they implement it — and very likely their enrollment increase will continue to happen ahead of any increase in housing they provide.
And the other part of the answer is for more rental housing to be built in town, to accommodate those students who are already here due to prior enrollment increases, and for those non-student renters who are squeezed out of the current market.
Don’s “plan” includes no consideration regarding the impacts of ever-increasing density. In fact, he doesn’t address it at all.
Don also disregards the units under construction or planned (including a large, densified affordable housing complex recently approved for Fifth Street, and new live-work units nearing completion, both of which are east of the proposed Sterling site).
I am discussing the current situation:
The increasing density in neighborhoods due to mini-dorms and students crowding into single-family homes.
The thousands of UC staff commuting in every day.
The thousands of UC students commuting in every day.
That is what we are dealing with right now. In the absence of more rental housing, that will increase. You don’t address that “at all.” Ever.
I don’t disregard the very small number of units under construction. I just consider them a very small percentage of what is needed.
Don, I am not sure what about my answer warrants your attack. I agreed that West Village alone is not the answer.
I also agree that there is a fundamental problem with the UCD LRDP not building enough new housing. UCD should do much more, and everyone should write to them and advocate that they do. The LRDP is not finalized and has not even had the EIR start so now is the time to do that.
I would suggest that you take on UCD’s plan to only house 90% of the enrollment increase. The planners have stated repeatedly that they are only planning on housing 90% because they expect 10% to live OUTSIDE of Davis, just as 10% of the student population currently lives OUTSIDE of Davis. Therefore they claim they are increasing on campus housing sufficiently to account for the need to build any new apartments in Davis.
Personally I don’t agree with their estimate, and I imagine you don’t either. I have written to the UCD planners telling them so, have you?
Even if UCD built for 100% of increased enrollment it would not be enough. So tell them to do even better.
Here’s a different point of view on West Village.
Mark, I think that is probably the most credible reference I have seen you post.
Of course any new development will be built by a different builder and like have a very different cost structure so it is still to early to know what new apartments will go for out there. The staff housing that is being funded by UCD itself so that will be a completely different thing too.
Don: “I am discussing the current situation…You don’t address that “at all.” Ever.
Don – There are a few posters here who are not interested in having factual discussions that focus on solving problems. Their goal is to obstruct, obfuscate, confuse the conversation, and attack any poster presenting facts or opinions that do not fit with the agenda. They will never address the critical issues you point out because to do so would negate all of their ‘efforts.’ Engaging doesn’t change their behavior, it just provides additional opportunities to continue their obnoxiousness. As long as they continue to act in this manner, the only viable approach is to ignore them.
As an aside, in my opinion, it was unfortunate that you chose to edit hpierce’s comment a few days back. It was the most honest expression of disgust with this type of behavior that I have seen posted here (it was also quite funny).
Well, I suppose it’s “interesting” to be admonished by Mark (of all people), regarding online “behavior”. (The same guy who said that I needed my “teeth kicked in”.)
It seems that many commenters want to disregard the primary point – that ever-increasing density has consequences. Pretty simple, really. And, a difficult point to ignore. However, some apparently advocate just that, when advocating for significant changes in city planning and zoning. Pure lunacy, really.
And, if anyone wants to make a disparaging comment, they’re free to do so (as long as they adhere to the Vanguard’s guidelines). Such tactics usually start appearing, when one runs out of legitimate arguments.
But the problem is you want to have your cake and eat it to – you oppose density, you oppose peripheral development. I think that’s the frustration.
David:
I oppose making substantial changes to planning and zoning, based on the vacancy rate. I might have a different point of view, if the University treated the city as an actual partner (before launching plans to increase enrollment, with a focus on non-resident students).
I would also have a different point of view, if there were no other options (including lower-cost, nearby communities, until the University fully responds). Ultimately, the campus is (by far) the best place (for both students, and residents). However, the University system has chosen to proceed with its planned increase, without adequate consideration of the consequences. No one is “forcing” them to do this.
If the University was a private, for-profit organization (and some may argue that it almost operates that way), the entire city would be in open revolt, at this point. (Under those circumstances, many would likely oppose development on campus, as well.) And yet, we’re encouraging them to meet their own needs, despite opposition from some on the Vanguard that seem to have their own interest, regarding development. (Gee, do you think that some “might” profit from opposing development on campus?)
On a broader note, I never really “got the memo” stating that ever-increasing density was a viable, permanent solution for any community. (I could see that this would create problems, as soon as some started proposing it.)
I definitely consider myself an environmentalist, but no effort will help until we acknowledge that we can’t grow and develop indefinitely. Even though there is open land (at this point), there are limitations regarding roads, water, and other impacts.
In the meantime, just look around (within, and beyond Davis), if you think there’s a “shortage” of new development.
David, I think the best way to answer this is there is density and there is density. I doubt Ron would be opposed most to densification that happened appropriately in a place zoned for it.
Take the Old East Davis Neighbors as an example. They have supported a lot of densification in their neighborhood or near their neighborhood that has happened with existing zoning. What they seem to oppose is densification that goes beyond existing zoning.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Density is being misused here. Density is a metric and yet we are using it almost as a noun. The problem I have is that the level of density the Old East people are willing to allow insufficient to meet our housing needs so long as the periphery is a non-starter.
huh? there is a post office on campus…many don’t know about it.
long rides, on a cold rainy day…what a bunch of wusses…..
when we lived on campus…I in Hughes and friends in Beckett, we walked everywhere – even in thosed days one could be mowed over by bicyclists during “commute” times… ie: the 10 minutes between classes…
then when I moved to the outskirts of town to the Anderson place apartments on the corner of Anderson and Covell, before there was a North Davis or a shopping center, we used to fight the north winds on our bikes…riding as fast as one could but pracitically standing still.
I had my architect equipment sticking out of my back pack….got into a major accident when somoent clipped it when the guy wasn’t paying attention…
no unitrans service there at that time an especially during the summer….
Times have changed Marina. They now routinely use indoor toilets for example which they did not have in your day.
A city the population-size of Davis on average is twice the geographic area and half the population density. A city the population-size of Davis generally has converted the old downtown to “Old Downtown” and has added more self-contained peripheral and neighborhood shopping and entertainment that then allows people to travel only in their neighborhoods and not add to the mass of people traveling across and though town. A city the population-size of Davis generally has more jobs in town thus preventing residents from needing to commute into and out of the city every day. A city the population-size of Davis generally has more roads and more lanes per resident thus improving traffic through-put and reducing congestion.
Most of the issues that people complain about and appear to fear are a factor of density, not geographic size. Yet they reject peripheral expansion because of the issues and fears.
Note too that the lack of adequate housing in Davis is pushing more people that work in Davis or attend school in Davis to outlying cities and they are all converging on our limited roads, lanes and business locations.
We keep rejecting the development of more capacity while the numbers of people using the capacity keep increasing.
Foolish.
And then, Frankly adds this:
Maybe those commuting “out of town” can “switch places” with those commuting “into town”?
Or – maybe we can accept the fact that Davis is a slow-growth community. Just giving you a hard time, Frankly. 🙂 I’m sure that you’ll have a response.
I’d just to see some proof about how many students live out of town because they can’t afford to live here. Is there even any data on this or are people just pulling it out of their behinds?
Odin:
I would think that many would “choose” to live out of town, for cheaper rent and the ability to rent an entire room or unit, and the ability to park a car (even if they choose another method to get to campus, given the cost and difficulty of parking there). And, many will continue to do so, regardless of whatever expensive, shared room without parking that they might ultimately obtain in Davis.
What I mean is, are they living there because they can’t afford Davis, or because they just want to pay less? I prefer data over speculation. No matter what, and no matter how much we build, Davis will always cost more to live in than Dixon or Woodland so why wouldn’t someone who can’t afford to live in Davis want to live in those towns anyway?
oops, kinda reiterated what you say above.
Ron wrote:
> I would think that many would “choose” to
> live out of town, for cheaper rent
Since the cost of driving in to Davis five days a week is MORE than you can save renting a a room out of town no single full time students live out of town “just” for cheaper rent…
SouthofDavis:
If one has a car already, the incremental cost of driving is not that much. (However, I’d suggest that public transit will improve as more seek housing in surrounding communities, and parking at or near the University will become even more difficult.)
Not everyone wants to (or can) pay exorbitant rent to share a room (also without any ability to park a car – even if it’s not used to commute to campus).
I need to sign off for awhile (soon). Therefore, I won’t be here to continue arguing with those who support ever-increasing density (without any consideration of consequences). (Comment not directed at anyone in particular.)
“If one has a car already, the incremental cost of driving is not that much.”
I have to disagree with you – there is gas and upkeep costs. You are obviously far removed from the days of having to scrounge up gas money. That’s very prohibitive for a lot of low income people.
David:
I don’t think so, regarding commuting short distances. But again, public transit is already in place (and is likely being used by some staff members, at least), and will likely improve. And, it will become more difficult and expensive to park at, or near, the University – thereby discouraging commuting via private auto even more.
I do hope that I’m “far-removed” from paying $600 to share a room, at one of these proposed developments. (And, with no ability to park a car, for those times that I need to travel to locations outside of Davis.) (However, the planned amenities sounded quite appealing, at least.)
Given the amount of tuition, rent, and increased competition for jobs these days (since “everyone” seems to have a degree), I will acknowledge that I’m glad that I’m not a student these days. (I’m stating this as I hold two master degrees in employable fields, which haven’t “paid off” as much as one might expect.)
Another poster (SouthofDavis?) is right, regarding some blue-collar trades being more lucrative, and with better opportunities these days. If I had the ability and skill to do so, I’d probably have chosen a different path.
As someone who works with a lot of students, the need for gas money is a serious limitation.
David: As is exorbitant rent, for a shared room.
Seems like the students you work with have cars, from your statement.
Less and less often. When I first started this most had a car. Seven years later, more often than not they don’t have a car.
David:
That’s o.k. I’m pretty sure that the University’s efforts to recruit more wealthy students (including non-residents, who pay more to attend the University) will make our points moot, anyway.
Got to run, for awhile.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Ron wrote:
> If one has a car already, the incremental
> cost of driving is not that much.
The reason Uber has so many people sign up is they think like Ron. Once you sell the car and the depreciation becomes an actual “cost” the cost per mile is fairly consistent in the 10-20K year range.
A guy that drives 10K a year extra commuting to UCD from Fairfield won’t have a huge “incremental” cost each month but will probably have thousands more in maintenance costs and get thousands less when he sells his car than if he left the same car sitting in a Davis carport most days when he rode his bike to school.
> I won’t be here to continue arguing with those
> who support ever-increasing density
I don’t care either way if we build or don’t build in town, but just like my live did not change at all when West Village was built out I don’t think I will even notice if they build at Nishi, Trackside or on 5th St.
> I do hope that I’m “far-removed” from paying $600
> to share a room
Don’t forget that paying $600 to “share” a room is just in the newest, nicest most expensive properties with the most amenities. If you shop around you can find your own room in town for LESS than $600 and can find rooms to share for LESS than $300…
P.S. This weekend I rode with a bunch of kids out to the UC Davis Airport open house and the big lot next to the Sac City College building in the West Village was being developed, does anyone know what they are building?
We know roughly how many students live out of town. We don’t know what their reasons are. The Transportation Survey samples and makes projections about where people live. This is from 2015:
Thanks Don.
In case you didn’t catch this in my earlier post. the UCD planners have repeatedly stated that they expect about 10% of the students coming to Davis in the increase in enrollment will live outside of Davis.
I expect they will, too, since there will be no place in town for an extra 10% to live.
I really doubt that is true.
Are there extra-large blocks in Davis without roads?
And what congestion? The only congestion I run into in Davis of any significance is downtown around dinnertime on a Friday, and into and out of UCD during commute hours along Richards and 1st. The other “congestions” I run into are small, temporary slowdowns that would be a pimple on a fly’s butt in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Sacramanento, as examples.
Alan wrote:
> The other “congestions” I run into are small, temporary
> slowdowns that would be a pimple on a fly’s butt in
> Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Petaluma, Santa
> Rosa and Sacramanento
I agree with Alan and anyone that complains about Davis “congestion” needs to get out of town more often (maybe drive from Downtown LA to Van Nuys or Downtown SF to San Rafael at 5:00 on a Friday night).
With that said Davis does have a fairly high population density with ~6,600 people per square mile vs. ~2,900 people per square mile in Folsom a city of about the same size.
P.S. A neighbor just got back from Ireland and was surprised to find out that Galway City has about the same number of people as Davis (+ UC Davis) and Galway County (that is twice the size) has about 25% more people than Yolo County.
Seriously. I often wonder what people who complain about congestion in Davis are comparing it to.
Don:
It’s not just about traffic congestion. Concerns regarding Trackside and other proposed developments are also ultimately related to (building) density, as is overall impact on city finances, schools, and impacts on all infrastructure/amenities.
For some reason, you only seem concerned about impacts when it affects rural residents, as you’ve previously and adamantly discussed. (I support those concerns, as well.)
Regarding traffic congestion in particular, it might be easier to get out of town if I-80 wasn’t backed up so often. Perhaps we should have traffic congestion “goal” of (at least) becoming a “pimple on a fly’s butt”?
Trackside?
No, but Davis is only 10 square miles with 67,000 people plus another 8,000 on campus that put-put around the 10 square miles.
Compare that to Folsom at about the same population as Davis but with 24.3 miles. In Davis the lights suck… reminds me of a line in a James Taylor song “took fifteen minutes to go three blocks”. Take the main arteries through town and generally hit every red light. It takes more time for me to get from one side of Davis to the other than getting from one side of Folsom to the other even at twice the distance. The reason? The main arteries in Folsom have more lanes and the traffic moves faster.
I am not advocating becoming Folsom, just that Davis is not immune to bad traffic. It is bad at times and in places and it is only going to get worse.
Davis needs a new perimeter road on the north boundary. Co. Rd. 30 from Mace Blvd. to 113.
Am very sure that the farmers/property owners would love to sell that right of way to the City, and then develop their property (by selling it to developers) on either side… fantastic idea!
Then the City could pay for all the roadway improvements and the new interchange… also acquiring the land west of 113 for the ramps on that side… positively a brilliant idea/concept!
More roadways, to include in a city parcel tax… very wise proposal…
The line almost draws itself. Lousy soil, and an easy starting point for an urban limit line to the north.
I agree. I take that road often to avoid the traffic in town. It is getting busier as more people do the same. Might as well memorialize the space between.
hpierce – is my sarcasm meter working? Where do you suggest that Davis grow… or not?
Frankly (your 10/24 9-ish post):
I believe that Davis should grow up (literally and figuratively) @ at least 12 units/acre, up to 20 outside the “Core”, up to 30 w/in the Core.
I believe UCD should take on its share of residential development as well. ASAP.
I believe that the City footprint should expand to include the Covell Village site, to “draw a line” at the north boundary of Northstar/Wildhorse (utility capacity, urban form, relocation or substantial improvement of Covell Drain/Channel A [at developer expense]).
I also believe City growth (footprint) is appropriate for the area under the ‘Mace curve’.
I also believe that the growth be “metered”… not all at once… ‘feast and famine’ cycles are not good. Next 5-20 years feels ‘right’… steady throughout that time if demand is there.
I believe that existing, vacant properties should be a priority within the current City boundaries… less political BS, although it will not protect us from other [Nimby or BANANA BS].
Working in the community, working many polling places, where I know ~ 5-10% of the folk, Davis is still a small town/City. Those who fear lack of connectedness if we grow, are probably those resistant to the Will Rogers’ line about “a stranger is a friend I haven’t met yet”. There are many, as well as the “deniers” who “have theirs”, but deny they are motivated by a concern for their own property values… many like a guaranteed ‘rate of return’, without realizing what a vibrant community we have, even with ‘newbies’… and many don’t participate in building the community except for ‘snipes’ on this blog and other token things.
As to ‘newbies’, always have to grin or laugh outright when someone comes up to the podium for “public comment” @ CC meetings, and start off saying, “I’m a long term resident… have been here for 7 years”… I’ve been in Davis for 46 years (less 2.4 right after college), and based on folk I have come to know and respect, I’m a borderline ‘newbie’.
Was very “frank” in the above… does this satisfy your curiousity, Frankly?
Don:
Yes – Trackside (and all proposed developments that have created concern among neighbors). I brought Trackside up because of Alan’s statement regarding traffic congestion (although I realize that he blames people like me, for establishing city boundaries). (However, I would argue that in other cities that don’t really establish boundaries, investors wouldn’t even be interested in such a run-down property, bordering railroad tracks).
In any case, no neighborhood should be “thrown under the bus”, and that definitely includes Trackside neighbors. (Even if people like me get blamed.)
You “realize” I “blame” you for WHAT???
Alan:
Not me in particular, but those who support Measure R. (You might note that many of the same commenters who are against Measure R also support a version of Trackside that doesn’t adhere to neighborhood guidelines. In other words, “they’ve never met a development that they didn’t like”, despite the impact on a neighborhood, or the city as a whole.)
FYI:
It appears that Yolobus already has one line dedicated to a Woodland/Davis commute. (One trip each way, at this point.) Of course, there’s also the 42 line, which runs all day between the cities.
http://www.yolobus.com/routes/index.php/242