By Robb Davis
Public health practitioners have developed “proximate determinants” models for key health outcomes to focus attention on the most critical factors that, together (and often in complex ways) determine or precondition key health outcomes. In the same way we can use a proximate determinants model to more critically analyze the factors that are most directly responsible for developing and supporting a vibrant downtown.
Defining these proximate determinants takes on special meaning at this time as a group of Davis citizens—the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee—begins its work in acting as a community “sounding board” with an outstanding consulting team led by Opticos to update the plan for downtown.
“Vibrancy” is the most apt description of what we are trying to achieve in the downtown. Focusing on the ends we are trying to achieve is the first priority in any endeavor of this nature and vibrancy builds on the idea of “vitality” found in prior core area plans.
Vibrancy implies a place that is alive and active—a place people will naturally be drawn to. Indeed, vibrancy in the case of our downtown really has two components. First, vibrancy implies that our downtown is not merely a “space” in our city but rather a “place” with meaning, attraction, and life—an important piece of our collective identity. A core area plan is not an action designed to more efficiently arrange a “space”, but rather to lay the groundwork for the creation of a “place” to which people are drawn—a destination of choice. But a second point is also important; we not only want our downtown to be a place that is central to our identity, but also one that provides economic benefits to the community that are greater than its relatively diminutive 
size would indicate. We expect it to be a place that provides broad economic benefit to the entire city.
I would propose five proximate determinants of a vibrant downtown (see chart). The five are not factors that work independently of each other, and the lines between them indicate they interact in complex ways. While there may, theoretically, be some optimal mix of the five it is not something we can define or work towards in any meaningful way. Rather, we acknowledge the complexity of their interactions and move forward without seeking some optimal combination.
We define what we would like each to accomplish and work towards balancing the five in reasonable ways. Some may be easier to effect in the short term, while others require more time and more effort to move forward. The point in calling them out is to assure we stay focused on the determinants that are most likely to move us towards the goal.
This is important because, as the left side of the diagram indicates, the determinants themselves are brought into being by the application of a variety of tools. The list of tools in this diagram is indicative, at best, and not meant to be comprehensive. However, we know that there are experiences from other locations and best practices deemed necessary to bring about/enhance the determinants’ ability to create vibrancy. One challenge we face is in focusing too quickly on this or that tool and becoming enamored with the tools as if they represent ultimate ends themselves. In my experience, most conflicts revolve around which tools to use or invest in (or not), rather than asking what the evidence suggests about their efficacy in helping achieve the ends we desire.
What should be clear from all of the determinants I have listed is the central place of people in our downtown. Transportation demand management is about bringing people smoothly into our downtown, providing them with multiple options for moving around in the downtown space, and assuring they can do so in a timely way. Housing, obviously, is about making it possible for more people to be permanent residents of the core. The diversification of retail and commercial spaces is to provide more opportunities for meaningful work and more varied shopping options for people. Safety is about making sure people feel relaxed and able to enjoy fully their time in the core. And entertainment and art are to provide beautiful and engaging spaces for people.
A vibrant downtown is made for people and is made vibrant by their presence.
We all want to be in welcoming spaces and vibrant downtowns draw us because they are home, because they are special shopping spaces, and great places to work and play.
Of the five, one that has received special attention in previous core area plans is housing. Previous plans called for finding ways to bring 1600 new residents to our downtown, and if there is a cornerstone to the five determinants, an argument could be made that it is housing. More people living in the downtown opens up new possibilities for retail, greater safety (24-hour residents means more eyes on the street), more audiences for events, and relatively fewer people who need to relocate to come into the downtown. Creating more housing, however, is probably one of the most challenging determinants to make happen.
I have noted that vibrancy builds on the concept of vitality found in earlier plans and a reasonable question might be: “are we undertaking a whole new planning process merely to change one word?” “Why do we need a core area plan update?” My answer to these reasonable questions is “yes,” and I would posit at least five reasons why an update now is called for.
First, urban revitalization and redevelopment has received much attention in the past 10 years with many new experiences and the emergence of best practices from which we can draw. This means that our toolkit on the left is greatly expanded over what it was in the past.
Second, with the “Amazonization” of our retail sector nearly complete, we face a new landscape with many questions about whether any meaningful retail can survive at all in our urban cores (or even in our peripheral shopping spaces). We must wrestle with what a renewed retail space will look like and seek ways to incentivize the kind of retail that meets the needs of residents and is inviting to visitors.
Third, emerging work arrangements require new kinds of highly flexible work spaces. The need for commercial space upgrades abounds and, just as is the case with retail, we need to discover how to incentivize the development of new and the redevelopment of older commercial spaces—be they for the existing service industry or emerging research needs.
Fourth, we have an aging population—one that is interested in downsizing, aging in place, and living in walkable and bikeable places. Providing options for this population and these needs is best done in dense urban cores. Even as we remain a “young” university town, our aging population will benefit by the creation of a vibrant downtown.
Fifth, we are more aware than ever of the financial challenges of creating a vibrant downtown. Our current process looks explicitly at the cost of redevelopment—everything from how to redevelop the many small plots in our downtown, to how to incentivize any redevelopment given the costs of doing so. These financial challenges are especially challenging in the post-RDA world in which we find ourselves.
This is a propitious moment for us to review and update our core area plan with a clear focus on the proximate determinants of the vibrant downtown we desire. My request to you is that you join us in this endeavor. We have already begun, and will continue, a series of community input opportunities. Visit http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/planning-and-zoning/downtown-davis-plan for more information on upcoming opportunities.
I would also ask for your feedback on the proximate determinants themselves. What would you add? How would you change the way they are written? What other tools would you add to the list for each one? I look forward to your feedback on this article and your active participation in the upcoming participatory community forums. Please feel free to write me at rdavis@cityofdavis.org with your critiques and ideas.
Robb Davis is the Mayor of the City of Davis
Thank you Robb. Good food for thought. Especially like the housing for aging population. Know several people who would like to buy/rent downtown to decrease driving etc.
Thank you Robb for laying out a sensible and understandable description of what a vibrant downtown Davis might be and some of the tools to get there.
One thing that, I believe, is missing is neighborhood. The Core Area plan will address what most folks think is downtown “proper” but also issues of transition to the older residential neighborhoods that surround it – Old North, Old East, and University/Rice Lane. Although you mention form-based codes and the need for “flexible mixed-use” standards, recent history would suggest that when pressure is exerted these sorts of standards get ignored or overridden in policy decisions.
How do we maintain a vibrant downtown and at the same time sustain and encourage many types of housing from single-family homes, apartments, and rental units in and around the commercial core? The transition zones between the neighborhoods and the commercial core/mixed use area will be, as it has been, some of the most contentious issues. How does the City prevent (if it wants to) the creep of overly large structures that dominate the landscape? Will Form Based Codes simply be another set of guidelines like the Neighborhood Guidelines that were essentially ignored recently?
I think there is inadequately discussed key conflict contained with this point being made. I have stumbled upon it many times when contemplating the difference between Davis and other places that attract people because of the vibrancy of the place.
And Frankly, I think it is the source of much of my personal irritation over the constant opposition to any significant development in and around Davis.
Is the downtown part of a neighborhood, or is the downtown the primary commercial and community center of the city?
And please don’t say “both”, because that is the source of the conflict.
Another way to frame this conflict is through a lens of key stakeholder assessment. If the downtown is to continue to be envisioned and designed as the primary commercial and community center of the city, then the key stakeholders are the entire population of the city… with those living in the core area and near the core area as having a proportionately similar stakeholder voice as any other resident. Conversely, if we are to look at the downtown core area as a neighborhood that happens to have the largest set of commercial and community assets in the city, then the nod should go to the neighborhood residents as justified in the stronger key stakeholder voice.
Frankly, I think the latter makes more sense.
The reason is that Davis has reached the point in size where it is no longer feasible to expect a single commercial and community center can support its needs assuming we are serious about maintaining vibrancy.
Travel to any known attractive and vibrant city the population of Davis and larger, and you will find multiple commercial and community centers. You will find self-contained neighborhoods. This leads to a situation where there is more vibrancy in the overall city while serving to prevent impacts to vibrancy that occur when a single and too-small commercial and community space is expected to serve a too large population of people.
Vibrancy of place is determined by people… but just the right amount of people. Congestion and the related inconveniences are a sign and reason for many to take their business elsewhere. Of course, not enough of the right demographics of people causes a lack of commercial and community center viability that causes a downward spiral in increasing damage to viability.
It seems to me that the downtown core area residents are responsible for much of the development dysfunction that plagues the city: on the one hand they demand that the downtown core area be recognized as THEIR neighborhood as a primary consideration; but they also work to prevent peripheral development… and it seems to me that they do so out of fear of another neighborhood developing that might change the dynamic of their neighborhood.
In other words, they are trying to have their cake and eat it to.
The ongoing vision for Davis needs to be one were we add some more self-contained neighborhoods that provide alternatives for the downtown core area commercial and community places that serve the city population. Because we are already seeing a growing lack of vibrancy in the downtown core area resulting from the residents that avoid it because of too much congestion. Frankly, people that spend money are people that make money and people that make money are more often time-constrained and un-able or un-willing to take their business where it is difficult to get in and out.
Welcome back Jeff,
“And please don’t say “both”, because that is the source of the conflict.”
But the answer is both. Just because something is a source of conflict does not mean that it is not true. Part of the conflict surrounding vibrancy “downtown” vs in the “core” is that many use these terms interchangeably depending on which best supports their agenda. People do this on both sides of the development issue. So for purposes of consistency of conversation, I would suggest that we use the convention that RDCanning used in his comment of 8:13 this am and the city’s definition of downtown and transitional areas.
Welcome back Jeff.
Davis has had neighborhood commercial centers for more than three decades (probably longer but I can’t speak to that). The Marketplace is a fine example of an incredibly busy and prosperous neighborhood center that has had stable businesses for years and few long-term vacancies. The East 8th Street center seems less successful but it too has persisted. Finally, Stonegate has had a rejuvenation in the past ten years after it’s grocery store left.
The City has made concerted efforts over the years to make sure the neighborhood centers continue to be viable.
There are a number of my neighbors who have been in favor of what we see as well-planned peripheral developments – particularly Nishi.
One of the current Council’s goals – as stated very plainly by Mayor Davis in November’s Trackside debate – is to get more folks living in the commercial core. I think densification – if done well – is a good goal for the commercial core.
I would suggest looking at converting one of the downtown streets to a pedestrian walkway. I’ve noticed that this has been done in many European cities and it seems to work well.
Turning 3rd street into a carless promenade was one of the central components of the 1961 Core Area Specific Plan. Elements of that idea have remained in all of the subsequent plans including the current one, though we have never fully implemented it.
I can see possible problems with turning 3rd into a carless street, the loss of needed parking spots and the routing of what would’ve been 3rd street drivers to clogging surrounding streets.
the closure of Fourth Street, between C and B was not in the ’61 plan, as I recall.
At the time, there were 4 streets near the Core that traverse L to B… Third, Fourth, Fifth (which had been 4 lanes, now 2+), and Eighth… now there are 3. Are you proposing two?
Might work… might not… with Eighth likely to be the sacrificial lamb…
At the time the ’61 plan was written the railway crossing at Fifth street did not yet exist, and Howard is correct, Fourth continued all the way through to B. The plan also called for a second railway under crossing entering the downtown, tying the two tunnels to E an F Streets respectively, each as one way streets. Obviously, the opportunity for this change has passed, so my point in my original comment was that Richard C’s idea was not a new one for Davis.
Mark and Richard,
I would completely agree with converting 3rd street into a promenade. Both third and fourth streets as currently configured east of the north-south tracks present traffic hazards and both have been recognized by the city as candidate streets for traffic calming. Starting the promenade on the immediate east side of the tracks instead of pursuing 3rd street as a “gateway” into the community for cars would be very beneficial to our neighborhood and the downtown in my view.
Not following through with opportunities in a timely manner often results in the loss of those opportunities. Because we failed to improve the flow of traffic into and out of the core through a second bore at Richards (as was first proposed in ’61 and later), we needed to look at other means of getting people downtown. With the expansion of commercial and retail activities along Second Street east towards Mace, we created the need to tie those developments to the downtown as well. I believe the consequences of those realities are what led to the change of plans for Third Street, from a carless promenade to a major entrance into the core, and I no longer see the original promenade idea as a viable option.
If we increase the population density downtown with mix-used developments and also expanded the commercial district to the East along the Third Steet corridor to a mixed-use redeveloped PGE site we may be able to justify installing a streetcar system along Third in place of the current auto access. A change of that sort would be decades into the future, though, even if we agreed on a plan today.
Not necessarily opposed to the idea of bringing more residences into downtown, but this seems to be a different idea regarding what downtowns generally consist of.
Bringing residences into downtown changes the types (and costs) of city services that would be needed. Whether or not this is offset by increased commercial activity does not seem to be addressed. Also, would increased density end up discouraging existing residents (from surrounding neighborhoods and other towns) from visiting downtown, thereby defeating the purpose?
Regarding more “mixed-use” developments, is there any evidence that those living “upstairs” generally work “downstairs”?
“more residences into downtown, but this seems to be a different idea regarding what downtowns generally consist of.”
A lot of downtowns have retails/ offices on lower floors and residences above, it helps draw in business and make the downtown more vibrant.
Also, does “mixed use” discourage some types of commercial development (e.g., a hardware store, or other types of enterprises)?
What is the overall impact of changing downtown from a commercial area, to a semi-residential area?
Perhaps there’s reasons that the two types of areas (residential, vs. commercial) were often separated (and/or adjacent to each other).
Ron asks above: “Would increased density end up discouraging existing residents (from surrounding neighborhoods and other towns) from visiting downtown, thereby defeating the purpose?” The answer is an emphatic yes. It’s no secret that traffic congestion and parking issues led to the defeat of Nishi 1.0 despite the strong backing of the CC, City staff and virtually every luminary in Davis that could be wheeled out in support. And in spite of the fact that advocates of Nishi outspent their opponents 20: 1. If Robb has another explanation for the defeat of Nishi 1.0 let us hear it.
Rather than take the message of the defeat of Nishi 1.0 to heart, the CC and its staff has doubled down proposing, even before the release of the UCD LRDP DEIR, to build much of the housing that UCD should be building on campus downtown, and in effect asking residents to subsidize the university notwithstanding the CCs rhetorical 50/100 resolution of December 2016. Oh, and of course they want Nishi 2.0 at all costs seemingly blind to the cumulative impacts (including fiscal) of these policies.
Stripped of its window dressing, Robb’s formula for restoring downtown vibrancy is: pack more people in there, as many as possible, and prosperity will follow.
In my view, and having lived here 18 years, and talked to many neighbors, the ensuing congestion or rather gridlock, that will result from Robb’s policies will cause many of us prosperous NIMBY”s in the neighborhoods to go elsewhere to shop, eat, obtain services et al., a trend that has been underway for some time. Goodbye Davis, hello Modesto.
One option that you have is the idea of putting retails and offices on lower floors, residence above, and parking on the interior of the blocks. I’ve seen it down and it actually works quite well and looks good. If you did that, then you would reducate your concern about parking (which is legit).
David: Your idea (“parking on the interior of the blocks”) does nothing to address the resulting traffic congestion. Nor does it address the increased costs to the city (resulting from inclusion of residential), or the impact on the types of businesses that might exist in a “revised”, semi-residential downtown.
Folks constantly clamoring for “change” often don’t seem to acknowledge the probable outcomes, including the resulting avoidance of the area by those living in surrounding neighborhoods and beyond.
Actually, it does, which you would know if you had attended Jeffrey Tumlin’s talk a few weeks back. Most of the ‘congestion’ downtown is due to people inefficiently circling the block looking for parking, and others moving their car from one private parking lot to another as they take care of business in different parts of downtown. Having off-street parking located on the interior of blocks reduces both due to people parking once and walking from location to location.
This isn’t a new idea, and the impacts are already well understood.
Well said Mark.
The other point would be the more people living in the downtown, the less they are having to drive to get to the downtown.
It’s pure fantasy to pretend that those moving into new residences downtown would not have cars (to travel elsewhere). Folks living downtown will likely be wealthy enough to afford a car.
Adding residents almost always means adding more cars. I have yet to see where adding more cars reduces congestion. (For that matter, even pedestrian/bicycle traffic is “congestion” which impacts existing traffic, but some might argue that it’s the “good kind” of congestion. I would not necessarily dispute that judgement.)
Reminds me of arguments regarding student housing, as if those folks don’t depend upon motor vehicles to reach locations, other than campus.
I did not say they would not have cars (hence the need for the parking).
Improved parking opportunities are not “dependent upon” adding more residences (and cars).
A similar argument is to “create jobs”, and then bring in more residents to fill those jobs, as some advocate.
Dan Cornford, I can name several cities the size (or a bit smaller) than Davis that have successfully brought people into the core of their cities without the sort of dire consequences you cite.
San Luis Obispo (one of David’s favorites) has a vibrant downtown with lots of folks living within a 1-3 block radius of city center. Considerably smaller but Pinole has done similar with a big redesign.
Many small cities have tackled the parking and congestion problems and managed to have successful cores. Redwood City is a good example as cited in the wonderful parking presentation six weeks ago.
Robert – one interesting thing is that San Luis Obispo’s downtown is not nearly as vibrant as you might think. In fact, with some exceptions, it is suffering from similar problems to Davis – vacant store fronts, and over reliance on bars, coffee shops and a move away from retail.
I am glad to see both David and Mark acknowledging that there is a congestion problem downtown, ALREADY!!!
There is a congestion problem and a parking problem during peak hours. During off peak, there is not a problem. And I’m not sure I would really describe it as congestion. I suspect even during peak hours it’s not worse LOS B or C.
At peak hours, when UCD is in session, it is ~ C (some but not all streets), and if there are events going on (4th of July criterium?), maybe borderline C/D. Minimum standard for Core Area, per General Plan, is F. Anyone who says downtown is congested much, is just impatient as heck. And driving a car.
Good to see your growth on the learning curve, as to LOS.
Howard: You are correct, that the city “allows” a level “F” for traffic congestion in the core area. As a result, the Sterling EIR did not even consider it. (I didn’t look at the Lincoln40 EIR, to see if it also did not consider congestion in the core area. For the moment, I’ll assume that it didn’t.)
The Sterling EIR did note the cumulative impacts of buildout of the city’s general plan, by the year 2035. It appears that even without Nishi and MRIC, several intersections outside of the core area are expected to deteriorate to levels D or F.
http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=6108
I shudder to think of what the core area will be like, at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service
Which doesn’t always work, if folks in surrounding neighborhoods and beyond avoid downtown (and pursue other alternatives).
I recall that you’ve frequently pointed out that not everyone rides a bike regularly (e.g., for trips downtown). Especially with an aging population.
I’m failing to see the point of “replacing” existing visitors to downtown, with a group that lives there permanently. In fact, there’s no examination of the consequences of that approach, including the city’s cost for providing services to such residences.
Actually, nothing has been presented which shows the current LOS in the core area.
Urban mixed-use development has been a practice in urban planning for about three decades now. There is a wealth of “examination of the consequences of that approach.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
Seems like you’re just posting a link without actually addressing the points (e.g., in my 7:31 pm posting), above. (Some of which you’ve previously brought up, yourself.)
My point is that you seem to be questioning some of the fundamental principles of contemporary urban planning, which is a profession with a whole body of research and published evidence, and that you are off to a bad start when you say “there’s no examination of the consequences of that approach.” This is why there have been seminars and presentations locally about these ideas.
When you get more people living downtown, without reducing the available retail/commercial space (which you achieve by building taller buildings and putting the residential upstairs), it is better for the existing businesses. It creates a different demographic in the downtown. There are more people living and working there around the clock, which actually makes it safer.
We could probably find some online presentations on the topic.
I still haven’t seen anything which addresses the points in my 7:31 p.m. comment, above. Other commenters have noted the same basic points, today.
I have no doubt that there are “professions” espousing the benefits (which still might not address the points noted, above). In any case, as noted in the Wikipedia article you provided – the “professional” opinion regarding separation of commercial areas from residential areas was just the opposite, not so long ago. It’s entirely possible that the benefits of the older approach might be “re-realized”, as trends change again. What’s old is often new, again. (Perhaps after one realizes that a totally gridlocked downtown has been created, limited to businesses which can coexist with housing, and which only appeals to those within walking distance.)
I honestly have no idea what “concerns” you want “addressed.” I also don’t understand why you put some “words” into “quotes.” If you have specific questions, rather than “concerns” perhaps you can put them in the form of simple “questions” and then maybe we can have an actual conversation.
How about I just repeat the comment I made at 7:31 p.m., since the points still weren’t addressed.
Hey, Ron, when I ask you to clarify your concerns and express them in the form of a question, how helpful do you honestly think it is to just copy and paste what you said before? But I’ll work with your patronizing approach and try:
Some will, some won’t.
Correct. There will still be places for cars.
You’re not replacing visitors. You’re adding residents to a part of town where people also come and shop and dine.
What EXACTLY are you trying to say or ask here?
You want an accounting of the cost of providing city services to new residences? Is that what you’re asking?
My guess is that information is somewhere in a staff report, but I really don’t think it makes much difference.
Don… as others like to point out about Europe, “mixed use” is much more than 30 years old… much older than 300 years ago, in urban areas… even urban areas of less than 68,000 people… very common in the US for over 200 years… any one who doesn’t realize that might be considered ignorant. Or having a very selective agenda.
Again Don, you are too “gentle” with some.
There was no “patronizing” intended. You hadn’t responded to my post.
Yes, that’s one of the consequences. Others have noted this, as well.
Parking/congestion is already a problem, at times. Adding more residents/cars does not help alleviate the situation. But, it will discourage visitors from surrounding neighborhoods and beyond from visiting downtown.
Also reminds me of the dispute regarding ACE’s pursuit of a parking area, for its own customers.
Some of my point is answered in the very next statement.
Basically, yes. That cost should be compared with whatever increase in business is (supposedly) expected. I’d also like to know what the long-term impact is on the types of businesses that would remain, in a semi-residential area.
Apparently, it doesn’t make much difference, to some.
Again, Don – reported to you (as a moderator) as an unnecessary, unprovoked personal/snide remark, intended to insult. Second one today, from the same guy, using the same remark.
Let’s see if the tone can be improved (for the new year) on the Vanguard. (Without necessarily having to report it, each time it occurs.)
Thanks in advance.
Or, perhaps understands that transportation systems, infrastructure and lifestyles are different in Europe, and predate the invention of the automobile. And, understands that automobiles (like ’em or not) were not available 200-300 years ago.
For the most part, forcing visitors traveling to downtown from surrounding neighborhoods and beyond onto bicycles isn’t going to work, if other (easier) options remain available. (Especially since those residing downtown would also have cars and contribute to congestion, when traveling to other areas.)
This is not intended as a “defense” of automobiles, but a reflection of reality. And again, the reality is that increasing density/congestion downtown would likely discourage those from surrounding neighborhoods and beyond from patronizing downtown businesses.
Regarding mixed use, I’d still like to know if the Del Rio mixed use development (at 5th and Pena) actually houses any commercial activities, downstairs.
I will say this (as hopefully a final thought, unless there’s some other continuing challenge that I might respond to):
If the “goal” is simply to create a larger population, then increased density (in general) is certainly preferable over sprawl. However, it really just bides time until folks realize that even “smart growth” has consequences, and can’t continue indefinitely.
Eliminate zoning downtown entirely. Let the free market figure out what the highest and best use for the land should become. Seriously- there is zero chance that the electeds and staff can get ahead of markets and intentions succesfully. Let the market figure it out. You cannot legislate creativity. You cannot dictate vibrancy. LET THE MARKET FIX IT!!!
I would argue that zoning in the downtown is not really the problem at the moment.
Restrictive zoning is the main problem all around town, and the primary reason that our ‘economic development’ efforts have mostly failed. I’m not quite at the point that Mike is on this issue, but getting rid of the zoning restrictions that we have in place is critical for a better fiscal future.
No comment.
Am suggesting the word “loosen” as opposed to “get rid of”… maybe the new CASP folk can recognize the differences between “piously adhering to the existing”, “amending”/”loosening”, “considered flexibility”, and “obliteration” of the zoning codes… the current ones are ‘byzantine’/convoluted, and/or inconsistent, at best.
Although I am not a zoning wonk, I believe that given the Roe Building (Fifth and G) and Crepeville, we know mixed use works… and is permitted… on the low end of residential density… we should at least make that possible for all of the Core, and be open to/encourage even greater density, if it is sought.
Robert Canning: Congestion is not necessarily a function of the population size of a small city, it is as much a function of the way a city’s transport network has evolved over time. Some (indeed many) small/medium evolved later than Davis with large arterial streets and parking to try and accommodate their residents. In Davis there are obviously traffic bottlenecks such as the Richards underpass that cannot be mitigated. Additionally, Davis has evolved as a “hub city” where most commercial activity is concentrated in a small downtown area, and not spread across the city landscape as is the case with many younger cities. To generalize: all roads lead to the city center and, of course the university with its very proximate location to the university. This is in many ways is the charm, or one of the great redeeming qualities, of Davis, at least for many of us.
Robert if you acknowledge that there is a congestion problem can you tell us how, in practical terms, you would redesign things to mitigate this congestion?
Finally, in San Luis Obispo, you have picked a bad example. I have done quite a lot of research on the issue of lawsuits and friction between cities and their host universities and the expansion of Cal Poly has been one of the burning issues in SLO politics for some time. I have no time to assemble the links now. You can Google for yourself.
I grew up in San Luis Obispo and am an alum of Cal Poly. You are correct that there are similar issues there as here and that Cal Poly’s expansion has been a burning issue. Cal Poly has agreed to house 65% of students on campus within the near future.
Mike
“LET THE MARKET FIX IT!!!”
I do not believe there is such a thing as a “free market” in the United States, at least in the sphere of city/business development. Please provide me of an example of where this exists and has been beneficial to the community.
Be honest, please (at least with yourself)… if there was a truly “free market”, I doubt you’d support it… a ‘free market’ would have no concept of a UBI, no universal healthcare/insurance, no Medicare, no Social Security… etc. Meant for your introspection… no response needed nor expected.
Perhaps, what you intended was to point out that no “free market” exists, nor should it be…
While I would agree with you that there are far too many constraints on the free market in the United States, it certainly is stronger here than in most countries. The towns and cities where many people love to visit, (Mendocino, Williamsburg, Murphys, Boston, Jamestown, Sonora come to mind from the past couple months) all were developed without centralized planning. People built housing next to bars, restaurants next to churches, mansions next to hotels etc. Amazingly, they have ag land right in the heart of the communities frequently. In short, people are creative, developers seek highest and best use of the land, why try to second guess it? And yes, selling off a street to a developer to turn into a city walk would be fantastic… Let the free market develop downtown.