By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – In recent years we have seen the retail portion of the Davis Downtown precipitously decline. Increasingly, the downtown has focused on food and entertainment—restaurants and bars. Movies and coffee shops.
While some have disparagingly called it a glorified food court, there is nothing wrong with that vision, in a world that has seen retail decline anyway through increased reliance on the internet.
There are some experts that believe brick and mortar can survive by making the experience part of the allure. That is certainly something to consider in a place like Davis that still attracts huge numbers of students and younger professionals near its core.
In designing the downtown plan, the city—consultants, commission, and city staff—have focused heavily on the notion of community space and then mixed use and density to bring more people into the core area.
Some worry that this will lead to a downtown that is dense, unrecognizable and that will 
discourage visitors.
If done right—a fair share of entertainment options, community spaces, and the right mix of food and retail—the downtown could be revitalized and tap into a younger, more urban clientele.
Right now, we see a downtown that is wasting critical space because it lacks an overall density.
I was just reading an article on Sacramento, where lawmakers are now looking to transform some old, pre-pandemic state buildings into housing.
“These are underutilized assets,” State Assemblymember Kevin McCarty said. “What we’re seeing down here is a hole in our central city. It’s not good for restaurants, for commerce, for activity.”
Under his bill, which has been passed into law, the state will transition underused state buildings into rentals and homeownership opportunities.
He said that he wants “downtown Sacramento offices to serve as a pilot program for the state.
“The state Fee and Tax department, the EDD across the way here, where there’s 2,000 people at each building who aren’t going to work anymore. They’re working, but they are working from home,” McCarty said.
That is another concern that I have—the city of Davis has taken so long to complete their downtown plan that it was designed in a wholly different era.
How much has the city re-examined the feasibility of converting low-density businesses into higher-density mixed-use projects?
As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the city is banking on the ability of mixed-use housing to be able to prop up and reinvigorate the downtown—which has seen a general decline, particularly in the retail sector, in recent years.
More than that, the city is counting on the downtown to fill critical housing needs, both market rate and low income.
Given a dwindling supply of vacant infill land in the city along with the continued unpredictability of peripheral development, the Downtown Plan’s 1000 or so market rate units is a vital source for infill in the coming housing cycle.
But should it be?
Back in August, we questioned the city’s reliance on 83 units of low- or very low-income housing in the downtown. Fifty-three of those low-income units are in a redevelopment of the E St. Plaza, 17 would be along Second and G, and 13 along Fourth St.—all of those are redevelopment sites.
As we pointed out, in 2018 Bay Area Economics (BAE) ran a proforma that should caution us against expectations that housing in the downtown is going to be feasible.
BAE concludes: “These results indicate that under current conditions, it will be very difficult for developers to undertake projects similar to the prototype projects, with a few exceptions. As mentioned previously, it appears that a medium-sized mixed-use project incorporating high density for-sale residential units could be feasible.”
They added that “development feasibility in Downtown Davis is challenging under current conditions.”
If anything, those current conditions are worse now than in 2018.
To understand the difficulty here, look no further than Davis Commons. The original plan drew heavy criticism from neighbors and slow growth advocates because of its sheer size and scale.
The proposal called for the demolition of the majority of the existing University Mall building for redevelopment as a dense, mixed-use project.
The project included 264 new multi-family residential units and around 136,000 square feet of retail space—about 50 percent larger than the existing commercial footprint. This does not include the separate 13,000-foot Trader Joe’s building which will remain untouched.
There would also be a three-level parking structure containing 533 parking spaces and which would be situated on the west portion of the site, with an additional 160 surface parking spaces.
But with a strong push back from neighbors and a split council, it was ultimately approved in a modified form. Ultimately, in August 2020, then-Councilmember Brett Lee proposed a five-story modified proposal that got a bare majority of three votes, over the opposition of Will Arnold and Lucas Frerichs.
But the developers couldn’t make the compromise work.
So two years later, the project having not broken ground, Brixmor announced that it was going forward with no residential component, renamed as the Davis Collection.
At least on the surface that might spell trouble for any real prospect of housing in the downtown—particularly any possible affordable housing component.
Brixmor is a big company with deep pockets, which it was going to take do the kind of expensive redevelopment in the first place. Add in the fact that the proposed size and scale of the project was likely far larger than anything anticipated in the downtown. And yet, they couldn’t make it work at less than seven stories.
That jibes with the BAE findings from several years ago that concluded if there was going to be mixed-use redevelopment in the downtown, it was likely going to have to be very high density.
One of the recent quotes is that the fiscal analysis showed “redevelopment only made financial sense when it was greater than or equal to 4 stories tall.”
We may get a better idea, because we know the city wants to rerun the proforma to see if affordable housing is going to be practical for the downtown and that should tell us if market rate will pencil out as well.
But a few years ago, they concluded mixed-use with high-density, for-sale residential units could be feasible.
Overall, BAE concluded:
Economics improve with density.
For-sale residential may be feasible on larger lots with higher densities or larger unit sizes (that is not likely to solve housing needs for workforce or low income, however).
Office over retail may work in unique circumstances.
Parking challenges will remain—unless the city is able to do away with parking minimums.
One suggestion, though, that the city should continue to look into: “Consider entering into public-private partnerships with developers to help put together feasible development projects that attract new businesses to downtown. This could include utilization of City-owned land on terms that help to bridge feasibility gaps where there is an expected return on the City’s involvement.”
This is a big problem. The city’s plan relies on mixed-use housing to provide low income and other forms of housing for the city. It is also relying on putting more bodies in the downtown to revitalize it. But feasibility is a big problem here and it seems that issue should be revisited.
In addition, there may be other ways to get more business that doesn’t cater to entertainment and food in the downtown, but the city doesn’t appear to be exploring that either.
This suggests that Brixmor believes that rehabilitation of retail/commercial is not dependent upon increased “mixed use” (residential development).
Perhaps the entire theory regarding “residentializing” downtown commercial/retail areas is flawed. It certainly creates challenges to mix those two uses, at least.
Not to mention creating a decades-long “re-construction zone”.
Hopefully, David is right about one thing – maybe it won’t actually happen (at least to the degree that some envision).
Perhaps it will ultimately be one more “nail in the coffin” regarding the state’s mandate to force housing where it’s not needed and doesn’t belong. Especially Affordable housing, given the lack of subsidies from the state itself.
I (and apparently others) are increasingly convinced that the state’s mandates will continue to fail, regardless of how much “saber-rattling” they do.
I’d be curious as to how you conceive the Davis Downtown moving forward.
I guess that depends upon what the definition of “move forward” is, and what “problem” is attempting to be solved.
As far as what I’d personally like to see? I wouldn’t mind seeing some of the ugly, single-story buildings replaced. The north side of the block that houses Chase bank, for example. Residential above it is fine, as well. (Though I wouldn’t want to see the Korean grocery store forced out.)
But if you’re talking about a 5-story building replacing Hibbert’s (and that entire block), I (personally) don’t like it.
I’d also like to see that ugly mall adjacent to Co-Op redeveloped, though I really like (Ken’s?) bike shop which is housed there.
Truth be told, I think it makes sense to have mixed-use at University Mall – given its location right across the street from UCD. (And, given the other new student housing nearby on that same street.)
It is interesting that Brixmor doesn’t think it “pencils out”, however. But that redeveloping retail (in some manner) does. (I don’t know what their actual plans are, regarding that.)
If you read the pro-forma, you can see why Brixmor would come to that conclusion. Mixed use is really expensive and only pencils out if it’s dense. So that’s not a huge surprise.
In my opinion, the downtown is not thriving. My question is therefore, how would you go about improving that in terms of a downtown plan?
I don’t know what you mean by “thriving”.
Empty storefronts? If so, maybe the owners need to lower the rent. (Though I don’t think there’s very many which meet that description.)
I personally view the loss of Hibbert’s as a concern, but I guess that’s what happens when a city sprawls outward. At that point, a lumberyard in the middle of town probably doesn’t make much sense.
Fortunately, Davis still has ACE.
Another thing I’d like to see is restaurants which aren’t necessarily targeting students.
Given that housing is generally a money-loser (and density/lack of parking, along with endless construction activity discourages visitors), I have yet to see any honest, long-term analysis regarding the overall fiscal impact of what you and others propose.
But getting back to Brixmor, they apparently don’t think that additional residential development is needed for them to reinvest in that property. And that adding residential is actually a money-loser for them.
The downtown is not doing well is what I mean by “thriving.”
On Brixmor, it’s the same problem that the downtown has – the cost of construction, mixed use in particularly is high and does not pencil out except under very limited circumstances.
That “clarification” did not “clarify”.
The bottom line (for me, personally) is that I’m pretty happy with the downtown, as is. With slow changes, over time. (I’ve seen a number of changes over the past 20 years or so, none of which bother me. With the exception of the closure of Hibbert’s, and some restaurants in Davis – as a result of the pandemic.)
I suspect I’ll see more changes, though I wouldn’t throw out the “baby with the bathwater”. (See the “Korean grocery store”, or “Ken’s bike shop” as potential examples of that.)
Not to mention World Market, at University Mall.
That’s actually what I was getting at with my original question. You’re happy with a downtown that increasingly mediocre restaurants, declining retail, and empty store fronts. That’s the current state of affairs. As someone who comes downtown six days a week to work, I’m increasingly not satisfied with the downtown.
I don’t know if they’re “increasingly” mediocre, as I don’t recall Davis having very many restaurants which primarily targeted non-students in the first place. I do know of two restaurants (one of which is outside of downtown) which closed as a result of the pandemic. The other restaurant (downtown, in an old bank building) reopened, and is now serving a different type of cuisine. (Not necessarily more “mediocre”.)
I have not seen this quantified, but you already know that retail has been increasingly impacted by online alternatives. Interestingly, Brimor apparently doesn’t think this is a problem.
Another business I “miss” (as a result of redevelopment) is the picture framing shop that used to be located at Trackside. (Though I think they moved somewhere, not sure.)
Truth be told, downtown is on the verge of becoming “too much hassle” to visit, already. Density, lack of parking, and endless construction will increase that problem – not reduce it.
You might have a different perspective than I do, since you apparently “have to” work there and might be viewed as a “resident worker”. (It seems to me that your type of job could be done at home. Though I suspect that there’s reasons that this option is not appealing to you, given your unique circumstances.)
As I recall, you also have a dedicated parking spot at your work, right?
Oh, another mall I’d like to see redeveloped is the Eight Street Mall. (That’s where the “other” restaurant closed, during the pandemic. That entire mall looks like something you might find in the southern reaches of Sacramento), though I also wouldn’t want to see the thrift store there “forced out”.)
(Sorry, south Sacramento.)
” I don’t recall Davis having very many restaurants which primarily targeted non-students in the first place. ”
Exactly.
Basically your comment is like everyone else. You can name a few businesses that you like or liked. Everyone can. That’s not a basis of a thriving downtown.
And you acknowledge: “Truth be told, downtown is on the verge of becoming “too much hassle” to visit, already.”
Exactly, there is little in the way of draw or attraction right now and it’s only going to get worse with the status quo.
You asked me what “changes” I’d like to see, right?
If they were never there in the first place, how would that be a sign of “decline”?
Though truth be told, I’m not the type that eats in fancy restaurants. The downtown one that closed as a result of the pandemic (that I frequented) has reopened – serving different cuisine. (And it actually served a significant number of students, as well.)
As an example of a “fancier” (appearing) restaurant that I’ve never set foot in, the one that’s part of the old city hall/police department fits that description. Is that still open? (I seem to recall that there was a fire there of some type, not too long ago.)
I (personally) like food that’s of reasonable quality and well-priced. I’m not looking for the “experience”, nor do I want to pay for that. I am pretty frugal, so perhaps I’ve given you an incorrect impression.
There are restaurants which I never go to, as they seem exclusively student-oriented (and more of a “hangout” place).
So, how is that a sign of “decline”? Again, the businesses which have been forced out as a result of redevelopment are the ones that I actually “miss”. With more to come, apparently.
By “hassle”, I’m referring to traffic, lack of parking, and crowds (e.g., of students or others). Along with venues that I don’t have much interest in, or want to pay for.
I like ACE and Co-Op, and am searching for a restaurant that I like again. (I haven’t yet tried the “replacement” in regard to the one that was in the old bank building, so far.)
Restaurants come and go, but the pandemic was a big (temporary) hit.
First off, Ron O lives in Woodland and Davis and probably doesn’t come downtown on a regular basis. So why do we care about how he “feels” about downtown. He’s not the primary target customer of a revitalized downtown. I don’t see anyone else other than a non resident complaining about the need to change downtown. As a frequent
As for restaurants targeted at non students, again Ron’s lack of visitation over the years shows. There were a number, starting with Bistro 33 and de Vere’s (both parts of Sac chains), the wine/dining where Three Ladies is now, the several restaurants where My House used to be, the restaurant that used be where de Vere’s used to be that changed to Seasons, just to start. Fairly recently there were 3 to 4 higher end restaurants that we adults frequented. We’re now down to Mustard’s and Seasons. There were also some off beat restaurants that have now been replaced by those focused on mass appeal. It’s interesting how Midtown in Sacramento has gone the other way, successfully.
“Probably” – now there’s some “evidence”.
Why not ask David, since he’s the one who engaged with me.
How would you know what the “primary target” is? Are you running any type of business downtown, targeted to customers (retail, restaurant, etc.)?
You don’t see anyone else commenting on here at all, other than me, you and David. And he’s the one who engaged me.
Actually, it doesn’t. Did you not see the part about me being “frugal”? Did you note the businesses I do frequent?
And how would you know if this was any different, assuming (for example) that I did live in Davis for an extended period and may still have a connection, or more than one type of connection to Davis? (Not that I’m confirming any of this, as it’s none of your business.)
Another one I’d add is the Korean market, on the same block as Chase. Would you like for me to provide a receipt (from yesterday), for example?
(And that entire block might “drive out” the Korean market, if it’s redeveloped. But truth be told, I might think that’s still a good idea, given the buildings that are on that block – as already noted.)
For that matter, David noted this (which is probably accurate):
But more importantly, no “problem” has been provided to “solve”.
I do not think it’s a “good idea” to approve 5 stories at Hibbert’s (or that entire block), regardless.
Terrific. Already, folks don’t even want to work in those buildings, let alone live in them.
I suspect that (one way or another), this will turn out to be either not feasible, or will lead to some other unintended negative consequence. I recall that the “Governator” also mistakenly tried to sell off some state-owned buildings at one point.
Once the state sells something, they’re not getting it back. I suspect that (as usual) this would turn out to be a short-sighted, ill-advised pursuit.
David
I agree we may have to rethink the Downtown Plan–it suddenly became obsolete in March 2020. The driver was going to be downtown office space, even with research space. Now it’s unlikely that we’ll even maintain what we’ve got. Even BAE has downscaled its downtown office! However, we might have to wait this out for a bit. The commercial real estate market seems head for a crash. That may take until some long term leases in major cities run out and the property can’t be released at similar terms. I don’t think we have enough information yet to prepare a new plan. Watching the downtown whither now is painful.
Ron O
How do you know that Downtown businesses are targeting out of towners like you? I’ve never heard anyone describing trying to attract people from Woodland, but I have heard plenty about bringing in Bay Area visitors. As a resident here who has an actual stake in our community, I’m engaged in finding out what will keep our economy vibrant here, not a periodic interlocuter who simply walks away from the difficulties in this town. It’s not for you to decide how we manage our city and its economy. (Being at Kim’s yesterday proves nothing as to your actual involvement here.)
But then again you get a thrill out of trolling the rest of us…
Uhm, Bay Area visitors are “out of towners”.
For that matter, what makes you think I don’t have any connections with the Bay Area, as well? I’m quite familiar with how Bay Area folks generally view the Sacramento region – including Davis.
Next time, you might (also) want to learn how to spell “Sebastopol”, before you start referring to it in another article as a “model” for what you think Davis should be. And you might also want to compare their relative sizes, before doing so.
But again, would you like for me to show you receipts from a couple of days ago (the Korean Market, and Co-Op)? Whether or not they’re trying to “target” someone like me?
Truth be told, there’s probably lots of people who are currently in “North, North Davis” who have a connection to Davis (and frequent it, as well). We already know that those residents are delaying the inevitable time that DJUSD is forced to “right-size” itself, for example.
Again, you have no idea what connection(s) or “stakes” I may have in Davis. What on earth makes you think this is any of your business in the first place? Also, do you think you’re actually influencing anyone regarding this repeated, irrelevant b.s.?
I can show you the one from Co-Op as well, if you’d like, as well.
Of the two of us, you’re the one who wants to “disenfranchise” voters in regard to development proposals. I’m on the same side as 83% of your neighbors, regarding that issue. Of the two of us, who do you think is more “representative” of a typical Davisite – based upon your views regarding that?
Do you even have a mirror in your house?
Ignore Commenter
Reply