By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A large number of business owners and community members showed up on Tuesday to offer their views on the future of G St, and while there were divergent viewpoints on whether to re-open to vehicle traffic, everyone agreed that the current set up was unappealing.
Ultimately the three member council determined they would continue to keep G St closed to vehicle traffic, and committed to finding money and resources to turn the street into an attractive feature for the community.
A large number of people showed up both on remote and in person – there was a strong push in the student and biking community to keep the road closed off to vehicle traffic.
Austin Nolan, who called in, explained, “I am extremely excited about the opportunity to keep this area bike and pedestrian priority versus cars. I think opening up the cars doesn’t make any sense. It’s less inviting towards, kids and families.”
Another noted, “I think the closure of G St has been one of the better things that I’ve seen come out of the pandemic for Downtown Davis. I think it’s a wonderful step towards making Downtown Davis more walkable and bikeable.”
On the other hand, business like the Artery, an art co-op have been struggling with the change.
One woman complained that she walks with the assistance of a cane and noted there is no handicapped spot near the closure of G St – although the city seems likely to address that concern.
Heidi Bekebrede noted that the Artery has been there for 47 years on G St.
“I just like like we’re not being listened to and I feel kind of almost bullied at this point at this meeting with all these people that came out of seemingly nowhere to give their comments,” she said.
She lamented that Josh Chapman was compelled by law to recuse himself. She said, “He’s the one person on this group who actually owns a business in Downtown.”
She added, “Having been somebody who goes to the artery a lot and opens up the store, we have vomit, we have bottles, we have pizza boxes, we have everything you could think of right there. And as a person who takes children around at, at my art scouts, go around, we have picked up so many cigarette butts on, on G Street.”
Meanwhile Jeff Ambrose, who along with his wife, own Woodstock’s Pizza which he helped to open back in 1986, over 37 years ago.
“We currently provide jobs to approximately a hundred people in Davis. Thanks to local support. Woodstock’s is one of the top grossing pizzas pizzerias in the nation. As many of you know, we have recently moved Woodstock to the corner of third and G Street after investing several million dollars in buying and building out the property. There we are bullish on Davis Streets have been a big cost for the city with free parking, continual street, and sidewalk maintenance,” he explained.
He along with other businesses indicated a willingness “to invest in a more permanent outdoor spaces that would truly beautify this stretch of downtown. We simply need a commitment from the city that we will have a timeframe that allows for a return on investment in these improvements for those who say we are hurting other businesses.”
Mayor Will Arnold addressed one concern about the lack of District Three representation, acknowledging, that there is a view “that this body should not make any decisions that are relevant to District 3 under we have a District 3 representative.”
That issue is compounded by the fact that Josh Chapman was forced to recuse himself because he owns Armadillo Music on F St, a stone’s throw away from the G St block.
“There is some wisdom to that,” Arnold acknowledged, but pointed out that if they punted, it would keep the status quo in place for the next six months which would mean, not only “the status quo of closure, but no permanent beautification or any improvements would remain for another six months.”
He said, “I think there’s, if there’s one point that everyone has expressed agreement on, it’s that the current existing temporary nature of things is not acceptable.”
Bapu Vaitla while sympathizing with both sides, said, “I do appreciate that certain businesses face uncertainty going into the future.”
That said, he came out firmly in favor of option 2 to keep G St closed to vehicle traffic.
“I think that there’s this larger issue of the street, the role that streets play in building community,” he said. “We know that cities all over our country are primarily designed for cars, not human beings.”
Even in bike friendly Davis, “it’s on one end of the spectrum, a possibility of balancing safe, easy transit with human-centered community spaces. A more pedestrian friendly downtown is, in my view, a potential catalyst for economic development as well as a contributor to, to our climate goals.”
There are legitimate concerns about aesthetics.
Vaitla noted, “I think that the staff has presented some viable options. I also think there’s some interesting ideas that have come up in public comment about how to mitigate potential negative effects to retail businesses in the short term, especially as the city helps to transition to this new environment. I mean, at the end of the day, the city has a responsibility to make this space successful for everyone who’s there now.”
Among the potential changes will be to make the southern portion of G one-way, allowing the city to restripe the parking spaces, put in handicapped spots, and directing traffic through the parking lot onto H Street.
For a time, it seemed like this might be a split vote again.
Gloria Partida noted, “I was on board for keeping this completely closed because I saw a lot of potential that could happen here, that could have programming and we could have permanent structures.”
But she said, “I’ve been very disappointed in that, and that we don’t have permanent structures, and it does look the way that it looks. And there hasn’t been, sort of any programming or activation that has happened in this area.”
But Will Arnold firmly placed himself on the side of keeping G St free of vehicle traffic, noting with irony his background with his family having sold cars in Sacramento and his disability and having small children leading him toward being a vehicle driver.
“If I’m gonna be downtown, I’m probably parked somewhere downtown,” Mayor Arnold said. But he said, “We have ceded a lot of our shared public space to one purpose that absolutely negates all other purposes. Once you have cars driving down a street, whether it’s one way, whether it’s two ways, that’s what that street is for. And to tread across it is to take your, to risk your life.”
He noted a huge amount of shared public space is devoted to cars and said, “I am a firm believer that we are now in the position to take back some of our public spaces from these thousand pound machines and reopen them to people.”
He noted at one point it was very controversial the decision to close over Fourth Street in order to create a continuous Central Park, but they did it, it did not harm traffic and improved the community.
Council in the end voted 3-0 to move forward toward a more permanent and hopefully a more aesthetic arrangement.
And the transition of downtown into a food court continues.
This has been a very frustrating process to watch. The downtown retailers have been treated very disrespectfully throughout the whole discussion. A “temporary” closure that has caused them material harm has now been made permanent. They had no representation on the council in this decision.
Perhaps the city can use some creative funding to assist the remaining retailers to find and move to better locations.
I agree with Don … this is the latest step in the conversion of downtown into all food/drink all the time … and with that comes all students all the time.
What I find interesting is no mention of what the City and/or the food/drink businesses are going to do about “Having been somebody who goes to the artery a lot and opens up the store, we have vomit, we have bottles, we have pizza boxes, we have everything you could think of right there. And as a person who takes children around at, at my art scouts, go around, we have picked up so many cigarette butts on, on G Street.” My own most notable experience with the G Street parking lot was with discarded used condoms, the wrappers the condoms came in, and empty Plan B birth control boxes laying on the parking lot asphalt.
I doubt someone coming to Winters in the morning to patronize their businesses has a similar experience.
I can tell you, there used to be a lot more vomit on the street, pre-2020. I can tell you that such problems are endemic in California now – not just vomit, but feces and urine smell. I don’t go to Winters very often, but I know that Sacramento and San Francisco, it’s a persistent problem.
Thank you for confirming the problem David. The real issue isn’t whether it’s a problem … it is … but rather what plan is contemplated, or in place, to address the problem? Did the Council engage that issue at all in their dialogue last night? Does daily street and sidewalk cleaning/washing in the hours between midnight and dawn make sense? What resources and equipment and staffing will be needed? What will the costs be, and how should they be paid for?
I think my point was that the problem has little to do with the configuration of the street and much to do with the configuration of society. I would hope that the city will invest additional resources to deal with that aspect of the problem.
Perhaps not the configuration of the street, but certainly the nature of the businesses on the street. Many of those businesses impose consequences on the street, and beyond, but do not take responsibility for those consequences.
So I will ask you again, did the Council engage that issue at all in their dialogue last night? Does daily street and sidewalk cleaning/washing in the hours between midnight and dawn make sense? What resources and equipment and staffing will be needed? What will the costs be, and how should they be paid for?
I agree. Not only were the sidewalks and gutters filthy and full of trash, but there was violence taking place on the street – drunken brawls, homeless encampments, people camping in doorways. Business owners seemed to ignore anything that happened outside their doors. The condition of G Street had been pretty bad for quite some time – decades. (I was amazed to see cobwebs on the walls of a business one time.) Since the closure, the street is calmer with many more eyes on the street and a much faster response. I don’t understand the relevance of some complaints – the lady complaining about lack of handicap parking along the street (there was no handicap parking on the street prior.), the trash on the street (there was trash prior). Neither of these issues would be resolved by opening up the street to cars.
Downtown has been in a transition hastened by the pandemic to an entertainment center focused on food. Retail has been leaving downtown since before the Great Recession. Whole Foods leaving Davis Commons was the biggest illustration of this reality. The retail businesses still there need to focus on connecting with pedestrians who are downtown for these reasons. Downtown has become much less of a single destination trip for running errands over the last two decades. (This probably began with failing to expand the Richards Blvd underpass.)
The downtowns that thrive have changed focus in this way, including converting parking to outdoor dining. Downtown retailers who don’t recognize this larger trend are doomed to fail no matter what the City does. We can’t be protecting obsolete businesses (at least in that location). The Artery’s complaints haven’t been substantiated based on what has happened to other retailers in Downtown. At least two clothing retailers have closed in the interim so all of those businesses are struggling–the street closure may have little or no effect.
We also can’t allow one or two businesses to dictate to the rest of the block. It’s not just Woodstock’s that is benefitting. We’ve eaten and drank at several places on G St since it’s closure (and almost never at Woodstock’s). It’s not just students who are enjoying the new setting. (And we have too often overridden the interests of students, not the other way around. If you’re from Woodland maybe you don’t see this in action.)
The just adopted Downtown Plan specifically recognizes that it is people, not cars with people, that use streets and that we will encourage pedestrian travel. Closing G St has almost no effect on downtown traffic congestion (and travel on G was already hazardous.)
Retailers can survive on G St, just as those in Santa Monica on the 3rd St Promenade, by adapting to the changed conditions. No one has a proprietary right to how a public street is configured. This is the first step in the Downtown Plan that the rest of us chose to support. As David points out, whether G St is open will have little impact on the situation that the Artery is concerned about.
Indeed, and the simple truth is that part of one street is not enough for something so popular. A permanent configuration – neater, with curated pavement, perhaps even a water feature – even more so. Citizens, visitors and owners of a variety of businesses will all be lining up to do the same on other streets in other parts of Downtown.
We will need to start working on better access by public transportation and bicycle and foot… starting now.
This is the obvious outcome when you make the decision to ‘protect’ retail property owners from competition for decades. And here I am talking about the owners of property zoned for retail and not necessarily the owners of the retails establishments, though there obviously is some overlap there as well. We gave the property owners an effective monopoly and thus raised the expenses for retail business so much that the only thing that is now viable are food and professional services. We chose to protect the downtown, effectively putting $millions in the pockets of a small number of existing property owners at the expense of everyone else in town. We still are, so until that policy changes, I hope you enjoy your food.
I personally don’t care a great deal about this issue, but it sounds like Woodstock Pizza had an “outsized” role in this.
Perhaps David’s previous defense (in regard to allegations that the council is “out-of-touch” with its own constituents) is becoming more suspect. (Not just related to growth and development issues.)
Seems like a continuation of the council primarily catering to the student population. (As such, there’s really no need to have a “student representative” on the council, itself.)
The real problem with these street closures is that no one speaks on behalf of the primary users – those simply passing through in vehicles or by foot. And the impacts on those users (and impacts on surrounding streets and parking spaces).
Instead, it becomes a turf war by businesses with differing views on whether or not to close “their” streets and sidewalks to those passing-through.
As I previously noted, some businesses in San Francisco and Winters encroach on the sidewalks, as well. Either directly, or just by customers and servers crossing back-and-forth between the “parking-lot eateries” and the actual restaurants, themselves.
How do you reach the conclusion that you did in the first two paragraphs?
Based on what I saw at the council opinion was running about two to one in favor of keeping it pedestrian focused. I checked with the city and they said between 70 and 75 percent of the large volume of email favored keeping it as it currently is.
In response to your question, there’s been discussion of Woodstock’s role in your own article above, as well as on the Davisite.
Including a “poll” that they apparently conducted, themselves.
Curious as to whether or not they also encouraged their customers (students, primarily) to contact the council.
But I do see that there are mixed-views beyond the student crowd, as well.
In any case, closing off one block has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting bicycling, despite how some present it.
Don is right – it’s essentially going to be an outdoor food court. I suspect that some of those restaurants will take steps to protect “their” space (which actually doesn’t belong to them in the first place).
I don’t believe that 70-75 percent of the respondents favored keeping it “as is”, given that your own article also states that no one likes it “as is”.
Who is going to pay for the “improvements”, and will they then believe (or “feel”) that they “own” that space?
Again, it’s unfortunate that the “biggest users” of the space (those passing through) are not asked what they think. (Or perhaps more accurately, they just don’t bother – and will use surrounding streets and parking spaces, instead.)
So perhaps it’s not limited to Woodstock’s customers, contacting the council to support the street closure?
Seems like a lot of speculation without much evidence to back it up.
Maybe. Perhaps you believe that they took no steps other than the owner commenting directly themselves, as noted in your own article. And didn’t mention anything to their own employees, customers, etc.
However, there’s also this quote, from the other blog:
As a side note (from your own article):
Didn’t this guy’s family make most of its money from the obscene profits derived from being a real estate broker (which drives up the cost of housing), rather than car sales?
(Either way, I agree that there might be some “irony” in his positions.)
That is not a surprise, but is it a good measuring stick. I suspect that well over 90% of the respondents were UCD students who go to That section of G Street for social life activities, more often than not in the last half of the PM hours. I also suspect that those customers will come to G Street for their social life regardless of how G Street is configured. Compare that to the Artery customers, who probably come in the AM hours or the first half of the PM hours. I suspect that unlike the bar/restaurant hoppers, they are more and more choosing to stay home and not go to the Artery.
Those are very different voices, and I hope staff and Council are making an effort to slice and dice the e-mails into “impact groups.”
Matt, I suggest that you visit the area. The outside eating areas are well used by families, workers eating lunch or gathering after work. There may be slower times, but every time I go down there it is busy with a wide range of age groups gathering to enjoy the space. I’m not sure that the Artery is struggling because cars cannot drive by down the street. There is parking in front of the store, across the street and also a parking lot. The Artery is a great place to go to to buy gifts for birthdays, weddings, and other special occasions, but it doesn’t do much to market its wares – no artist visits or special events, no rotation of art merchandise – and then there is the fall out of the pandemic with people not attending weddings, birthdays and special events.
I suspect that you don’t have a clue since it is obvious from your comment that you rarely visit the area (if ever). Rather than speculating…
I visit the location almost daily at various times between 1 and 8pm. Lots of families and adults with disposable income. The only time that ‘students’ predominate in my experience are in the hours after the retails shops have closed and I don’t see how that would impact retail sales. If there are insufficient retail customers to support the existing shops, I suggest that an investment in marketing would be a more effective way of encouraging more business.
All good points Charlotte. I have visited the area a number of times, but the sample size of my visits is small … certainly less than 100. Other than Woodstock’s what restaurants on that G Street block are family friendly … or a place to buy a working person lunch. I’ll be glad to recommend them if my current mental shortage can be cured.
Your observations about the Artery are solid. I believe the Artery would also like to attract customers who like to add art to their own lives, making their own homes into mini art galleries, but I’m not sure that Davis is ever going to be that kind of community.
I saw the site yesterday (mid-day), and didn’t see even one person using the tables. And it was a sunny day.
And yet, the street was blocked-off.
Here’s an idea: Conduct your own business on your own property, and stop asking others to subsidize it. (Unfortunately, the council apparently did not like that idea.)
This result was entirely predictable, when they shut down the street as a “Covid precaution”.
About as predictable as a “100% Housing DISC” proposal, for that matter.
The move to make Downtown both vehicle and parking hostile has begun with the decision to make the G Street blockade permanent.
Mark, your observation about how frequently I go downtown is just your opinion. You have no idea how often I go to Copyland or Davis Ace or Newsbeat or Woodstock’s or Three Mile or Dunloe or Peet’s or the Paint Chip or the Artery or Davis Beer Shoppe, all of which I have been to one or more times since Thanksgiving. However, all that is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the question that I asked Sharla, which I also ask you, specifically, Other than Woodstock’s what restaurants on that G Street block are family friendly … or a place to buy a working person lunch.
The two places I see a lot of kids at are Woodstocks and Temple Coffee.
Something important to keep in mind – this was just step one. I asked the city who would be allowed to have spaces, what the cost is, they don’t know yet. There could be lots of opportunities for outdoor space utilization, grant money, art grants, the works. Places like the Artery could have an amazing opportunity to reach whole new audiences if they do this right now.
David Greenwald said … “The two places I see a lot of kids at are Woodstocks and Temple Coffee”
Temple Coffee? If you or Cecilia took your kids into Temple Coffee what would they order and how long would they hang out? Perhaps I’m thinking of a different age group for the term kids than you are. When I hear the term kids I think elementary school age and junior high age.
You are wrong about this. It began as soon as they decided to close the street “temporarily” as a result of Covid.
And, I doubt this type of “foot in the door” approach is limited to Davis. I haven’ t looked lately, but I suspect that the third-world, ramshackle wooden hutches are still in place in downtown Woodland’s oil-stained parking spots. Really? You want to eat on Main Street (next to traffic), in downtown Woodland?
And don’t get me started, regarding San Francisco. The city that pretends that “no one drives or parks” (other than themselves, of course). With an ample share of those same type of structures last time I checked – including around Union Street – a premier area.
Again, as predictable as a “100% Housing” DISC proposal.
My thought was what was supposed to be temporary is now permanent. If this trend continues to prohibit driving through Downtown and sharply reduce parking spaces, I will switch my dentist and the movie theaters I patronize.
Walter: For what it’s worth, I may not be (quite) as against this as you are.
But I knew it would (probably) happen.
I don’t like the “privatization” aspect (paid for by government), most of all. And the overall lack of consideration regarding the most-appropriate place to do this, if anywhere. These are public streets and sidewalks.
It’s not like the Farmer’s Market, where vendors have to travel from somewhere (outside of their own businesses) to reach it, to an established location (open to any vendor) that’s not on the street, itself.
You can’t just close-off streets without impacting other streets, businesses, etc. (Though it has been awhile, now.)
Alan H’s article (today) referred to inadequacies in process, but perhaps it most-applies here.
Something that has been missed in this entire discussion is the redevelopment of the old Ace Hardware building. The logistics of building a seven story building there are going to hard enough and yet it never entered into the discussion.
That’s a good point Ron. Ideally the Davis Ace building redevelopment will also include the AMTRAK parking lot. Parcel as well, with the train tracks going through the combined building. The current parking capacity of the AMTRAK lot would be incorporated into the structure much like it is in the Sterling building. Ideally the current surface lot facing G Street would be part of that development as well so that both sides of G Street would be store fronts and access to the six floors of apartments above the first floor. That way they could have an elevator at a G Street entrance and an elevator at the train station side of the building
Davis population is increasingly made up of senior citizens and college students.
As a percentage, 65 and up:
2000 6.6%
2020 27.49%
Bike ridership above age 65? Share of Americans who rode a bike in the last 12 months (2021):
77% of Americans – Not at all or less than every 2 – 3 months.
If you want a diverse mix of retail and dining downtown, I suggest that planning should not reduce the likelihood of downtown visits by the aging population of residents.
Council members and candidates may wish to talk privately with the business owners about this issue. Many business owners are reluctant to take public positions on these issues.
Well said Don.
And yet, most people in town like the idea of closing G Street to vehicles. I do. And when I’ve chatted with neighbors, most of them do…so why is my street such an anomaly? And the idea that cars “passing through” have some right or should have some say is total nonsense. If they are passing through, it means they aren’t contributing at all, so why should anyone care what they think? With the traffic closure as it is, it has made zero difference to me where I go downtown, only how I go. I know it’s closed off when I’m in the car, so I take a different route. And, I’ve shopped in the Artery over the last 45 years and never gotten a parking space in front in the old days. I’m impressed the council held their course of action on this. I will retract most of what I say in support if, in another two or three years down the road and assuming there is a demonstrably serious attempt at making this stretch of G Street attractive, the whole thing is an acknowleged flop. I will join in the chorus of, oh well we tried but it failed. As it stands now, there has been no serious try so there is no way to know if it’s a concept with legs or not.
You have no idea if that’s true, or not. And even worse, neither does the council.
What if every resident and business decided to close “their” streets to those passing through? Why not, since those passing through have “no say”, in your view.
Contributing to what? Is that the purpose of streets – to contribute? I thought that the primary purpose of streets was to provide access for those trying to get somewhere.
In addition, I’m pretty sure that most folks have already “contributed” to the cost of constructing and maintaining streets. They aren’t “owned” by the businesses and residences which line them, and neither are the sidewalks.
So much for “reducing traffic”.
Per the Davis Enterprise article, they’re planning to use federal government funds in regard to this privatization of public space to benefit select businesses.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/local/city/block-of-g-street-to-remain-closed-to-vehicle-traffic/
Per your own statement, you should have “no say” in regard to decisions to close off those streets, either – since you’re just “passing through” (and probably aren’t “making a contribution”, to boot).
And the businesses and/or residents lining those streets could legitimately complain about increased traffic and parking problems, resulting from this “different route”. As a result, maybe they should close off “their” streets, as well (at least to you, since you’re just “passing through”- presumably to reach “Pizza Plaza” – as someone else put it).
The answer to all your retorts is no, maybe and probably. You don’t like the closure to traffic. I like it…scientific poll 50% on each side of the question. Next.