Over the past 15 to 20 years, Davis has seen a notable decline in the construction of single-family homes, a trend that has reshaped the city’s housing market and affordability landscape. The 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report confirms that, while multi-family housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have increased, new single-family housing remains scarce, creating challenges for families and first-time homebuyers.
This analysis explores the reasons behind the decline in single-family home development, its impact on housing affordability, and potential solutions to increase diverse housing options in Davis.
- The Decline in Single-Family Home Construction
Single-family homes have traditionally been the dominant housing type in Davis, but new construction has dropped sharply over the last two decades. The Bretton Woods project, which included 69 new single-family homes, was one of the few significant single-family developments in recent years .
Looking at the broader trend:
- From 2005-2015: The city permitted some small subdivisions, such as The Cannery, but overall growth was slow due to land-use restrictions.
- 2015-2025: Single-family development was largely limited to infill projects, with most new housing coming in the form of multi-family apartments or student-oriented housing.
In contrast, many neighboring communities, such as Woodland, West Sacramento, and Dixon, have continued to build single-family homes at a much faster pace, drawing families away from Davis and exacerbating commuter traffic and housing demand pressures.
- What’s Driving the Lack of Single-Family Homes?
Several factors have contributed to the lack of single-family home construction in Davis over the last 15 to 20 years:
- Land Use Policies and Growth Restrictions
Davis has long prioritized slow growth and infill development, limiting suburban expansion through policies such as:
- Measure J/R/D – Requires voter approval for any major development on farmland outside city limits. This has restricted large-scale single-family subdivisions that are common in other cities.
- Focus on Infill – The city has prioritized higher-density development within existing urban boundaries, leaving few areas available for new single-family homes.
- Housing Priorities Favoring Multi-Family and Student Housing
The housing crisis at UC Davis has led city planners to prioritize apartment complexes and high-density housing to accommodate students. Since 2015, projects such as Sterling Apartments, Lincoln40, and Davis Live have focused on multi-family housing, rather than single-family homes.
The Housing Element report confirms this trend, stating that recent housing development has been “overwhelmingly multi-family, with few new single-family subdivisions approved” .
- High Costs and Developer Challenges
The cost of developing single-family homes in Davis is substantially higher than in neighboring cities due to:
- Expensive land prices
- Lengthy approval processes due to voter restrictions
- Higher construction costs compared to large-scale developments in Woodland or Dixon
Many developers opt to build elsewhere, where zoning regulations are more flexible and approvals are faster.
- How This Impacts Housing Affordability and Demographics
The lack of new single-family homes has contributed to:
- Higher Home Prices and Limited Availability
Davis home prices have skyrocketed, making it difficult for families and first-time homebuyers to purchase property in the city.
- The median home price in Davis now exceeds $800,000, making it one of the most expensive markets in the region.
- Many young professionals and families are forced to rent indefinitely or move to Woodland, Dixon, or Sacramento for affordable homeownership options.
- Changing Demographics: A City Losing Families
With fewer single-family homes available, Davis has seen a decline in family households, while the student and senior populations have grown.
- Schools in Davis have experienced declining enrollment, as fewer families can afford to live in the city.
- The new single-family housing that does exist is increasingly occupied by student renters, further reducing family housing options.
- Can Davis Reverse the Trend? Possible Solutions
Reintroducing single-family housing as a viable development option will require a shift in policy and new strategies. Some possible solutions include:
- Reforming Measure J/R/D to Allow More Single-Family Homes
One of the biggest barriers to single-family development is Measure J/R/D, which requires voter approval for annexing new land. Reforms could include:
- Fast-tracking certain developments that include a mix of single-family homes and affordable housing.
- Allowing modest annexations for well-planned single-family home subdivisions.
- Encouraging Small-Scale Single-Family Development
Davis could incentivize smaller infill projects that introduce more single-family homes in existing neighborhoods, such as:
- Duplex and triplex conversions in single-family zones.
- Allowing townhomes and cottage-style homes to be built in certain areas.
- Zoning changes to permit more detached single-family homes within city limits.
- Partnering with UC Davis on Faculty & Family Housing
With UC Davis’ growing influence on the city’s housing needs, a city-university partnership could create dedicated housing for faculty and staff, reducing competition for existing single-family homes.
- Streamlining Development Approvals
Developers often avoid Davis due to lengthy and costly approval processes. The city could:
- Expedite approvals for developments that include single-family homes.
- Reduce fees and incentivize builders to include more family-friendly housing.
- The Future of Single-Family Housing in Davis
If Davis continues on its current trajectory, single-family housing will remain a scarce commodity, and homeownership will be increasingly out of reach for many residents. Without policy changes, families will continue to leave for more affordable nearby communities, impacting school enrollment, local businesses, and long-term community stability.
However, there is still an opportunity to rebalance the housing market by:
- Reevaluating growth policies to allow responsible single-family development.
- Supporting infill housing that includes small single-family homes.
- Exploring partnerships that bring affordable single-family housing options to the city.
The conversation around housing in Davis is evolving, and as the city revisits its General Plan, addressing the lack of single-family homes must be a key priority.
I don’t think I agree with the general framing of this article. Yes, there are a couple of multifamily infill projects that have gotten through, and yes, there has been no single family developments ( bretton woods counts? Maybe not).
But to frame that as though we are building only multifamily projects and single-family is under-represented (and thus we have a problem) doesn’t track. We havent been building enough housing PERIOD… across all categories. The minimal examples of multi-family developments do not mean that our dance card is full in those categories. I would argue that the reverse is true.
There are multiple very good reasons why we shouldnt be building ANY more multi-family housing. And this is where the conversation gets tricky, because a lot of the arguments put forward by NIMBY’s in the past about urban sprawl etc are actually true…. Single family is bad for the environment in multiple ways, it is a ponzi scheme economically.. all the way to land use and tranist issues… all of that.
The better analysis frame for our housing situation would be to look at our entire inventory in different catagories… not just what has been built recently. When you do that you get a reverse impression to what is presented here: Single Family is the dominant property type by far, followed only by small-unit student housing.
Not having built single family housing recently isn’t a problem. Not having build 10x the amount of missing middle housing: Apartments / Condos / Multiplexes / Garden Courts / Townhomes etc… THAT is.
“ Not having built single family housing recently isn’t a problem. Not having build 10x the amount of missing middle housing: Apartments / Condos / Multiplexes / Garden Courts / Townhomes etc… THAT is.”
Fair criticism. I have chosen to use SFH as a the benchmark the last few updates due to accessibility of the data over time. If anything as you note the analysis for the other types of housing would be even worse
I pretty much agree with Tim Keller’s concerns.
I would though take them a step further. If you segment single family housing into the RHNA categories, Davis has actually built Above Moderate Income houses (affordable by greater than 120% of AMI), considerably fewer Moderate Income houses (affordable by between 80% and 120% of AMI), and almost no Low Income homes, Very Low Income Homes, or Extremely Low Income Homes. David’s argument ignores the nuances that come with those statistical realities.
That massive skewing of the market toward higher costs and higher income requirements to afford is the exact opposite of the realities of the City of Davis jobs market as reported by the US Census Bureau. The vast majority of jobs in Davis pay, when worked full time, less than the RHNA Very Low Income threshold, which is $32,500 per year. So the ability to pay of Davis workers aligns with no available new houses, while the ability to pay of Davis residents traveling to jobs outside Davis … contributing to VMTs and greenhouse gasses aligns with a substantial supply of available houses.
That is nothing less than structural classism.
Solutions in search of fake problems.
Davis is fortunate-enough that there’s sufficient value in existing single-family houses to warrant investment. (I’ve seen this in action regarding a house on K Street, between 4th & 5th street. Actually, two units – if you count the garage/ADU in the back.)
Just saw it today – they put some money into that, and are improving the neighborhood as a result.
This type of investment doesn’t occur unless there’s sufficient return/value.
I suspect this will increasingly occur on the east side of Davis (e.g., Stanley Davis houses).
This is one reason why Davis is “better” than most valley towns.
RO say: ” Just saw it today – they put some money into that, and are improving the neighborhood as a result. ”
You should have seen it before they put some money into it (if it’s the place I think it is). Would have taken weeks just to count the rat droppings.
Single family homes are bad for the environment and are a ponzu scheme? Maybe, but young couples love them to make a nest and have a family.
The question is who should decide, individuals in a free and competitive market, or top down locals who think they know how other people should live? The result is individual families voting with their feet and moving to spring lake resulting in longer commutes to places like UCD.
It might be a longer commute, but it’s a pretty easy/direct one (down 113). But the REAL reason younger families are selecting places like Spring Lake is because it’s much less-expensive (more bang for your buck).
Personally, I think pre-owned houses in Davis are generally a better deal than a new one in Woodland. And in the example I provided above, someone got one on a large lot, with an ADU already included – right next to downtown. Granted, they probably put a couple hundred thousand into fixing it up. (It also looks better than the photo, now.)
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/417-K-St-Davis-CA-95616/16543489_zpid/
Here is how Ron’s comment should have read: “… RICH young couples love them”
There are very few options for young couples and families that are in moderate income classes. The people who cut your hair, maintain the university, prepare your food… THEY get to fall in love and have kids too, and we have blocked them out of our community entirely.
The idea that people advocating for a better and more equitable mix of housing for the full breadth of our economy are somehow “top down” and “telling other people how to live” is utterly ridiculous. Right now our options are student housing or single family houses. Ron isnt the only way to think this way, but the pathology of the thought process is the same: you are looking at what YOU want to live in… but we aren’t building this for YOU! This isnt about you at all. Its also not about ME at all. Its about the people we have economically displaced, its about THEM.
Would those people like to live in a huge house on a big lot? Sure! Is there ANY way to make that economically reasonable? No.
Might some people prefer to live in single family homes elsewhere and still commute? Maybe. There is only one way to find out for sure, but there has been an entire “back to downtown” movement where younger generations have shown preferences for living in denser urban centers to the extent that urbanist developments out-perform similar properties…
Ron is mapping HIS preferences for having a house and a yard where he can grow tomatoes etc onto everyone else. If you want to live that way, Davis has a lot of options. what we DONT have options for is people who have other preferences, who might want a condo, and to live in walking distance to a cafe or a store, and NOT have a water-wasting yard to maintain etc etc.
“If you want to live that way, Davis has a lot of options”
I don’t agree on this point. I think there is a good argument to be made for housing other than SFH’s in Davis but the fact is there aren’t a lot of SFH options and Davis hasn’t built much in the way of it over the last 25 years as the data attests to.
There are “pre-owned” single family houses coming onto the market almost every day. Every single property in the city, region, state, and country WILL eventually turn over. That is a certainty, not a theory.
For those waiting for a developer to build them a new one “instead”, I think I see the problem – and it isn’t a lack of construction.
But for those who want a brand-new one, it appears that 96 new single family houses will begin this year. (Looks like the site was purchased for $17.7 million, which makes me wonder how much the developer/seller paid for it.)
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/chiles-ranch-land-sold-to-century-communities-inc/article_de7baec4-f956-11ef-b90a-a36e25a2980d.html
It reminds me of the days when people used the help wanted ads to try to refute that we had a recession.
The difference between “help wanted” ads (vs. “for sale” ads) is that you WILL get a house if you have access to the funds. And the bidding wars have pretty much come to an end these days.
In contrast, there’s a good chance you won’t get the job.
Bidding Wars: Are They Really Over?
Ron also mentions that housing bidding wars are “pretty much over.” That may be true in some places, but in others, affordability remains a crisis. Inventory is low, mortgage rates are high, and institutional investors continue to buy up homes, shutting out individual buyers.
It is true – if you have access to funds you will eventually get a house, but that ignores the flip side of that which is the heart of the crisis.
The housing crisis isn’t just about bidding wars or market fluctuations—it’s fundamentally about who has access to money and who doesn’t.
For people with resources, housing is still a transaction: if they can afford it, they can buy or rent a place to live. But for those without sufficient income, savings, or generational wealth, the housing market is effectively closed off.
Absolutely—housing supply is a major factor in affordability, stability, and access. But the key issue is what kind of housing is being built and for whom.
Without even looking at sources such as Zillow, I’m confident that there are houses in Davis available right now that aren’t experiencing bidding wars. I’m equally-confident that anyone can get a decent, single-family house in the $700K-$750K range. In most ways, better than “new” houses (regarding location, materials, lot size, etc.).
Regarding “who has access to money” (vs. those who don’t) – that’s always been the case. Also, those type of circumstances change over time.
Regarding being “shut out of the housing market”, that’s simply not true for most people (and it’s certainly not true on a “permanent” basis). But you might not immediately be able to afford the locale in which you’d prefer to live. (In fact, I suspect that most homeowners in Davis are “priced out” of locales in which they’d prefer to live – which might also be the locale where they came from in the first place.
You just refuse to acknowledge a problem. Fine.
“The housing crisis isn’t just about bidding wars or market fluctuations—it’s fundamentally about who has access to money and who doesn’t.”
I have an idea: why don’t you take from the rich, and give to the poor 😐
I view the “problem” differently than you do. Part of the problem is related to expectations.
Please correct to add a by line so we know who wrote this. I don’t read things that don’t have attribution.
More and More, the Vanguard doesn’t publish things that DO have attribution