On Saturday the Washington Post ran a full-length news analysis on an issue that is becoming critical locally: “Why so many Americans prefer sprawl to walkable neighborhoods” (link). The answers could help guide and shape the housing debate locally.
Experts point out that neighborhoods representing “sprawl” have “all kinds of objectively undesirable things associated with sprawl.”
Studies have found, for example, “Obesity rates are higher, even after controlling for people’s age, race, education and income. So are traffic fatalities and emergency response times. On a per person basis, sprawl is more expensive, with its extensive roads, power lines and sewer systems.”
There are also environmental issues.
The problem? People do not live according to the preferences of planners, a Pew Research Center survey found.
The Post writes, “Most people, it turned out, preferred sprawl.”
The study, which surveyed 5079 American adults, found, “The only demographic groups in which majorities were willing to give up the larger house for the walkable neighborhood were the young, highly educated and Democratic-leaning.”
However… “A survey is one way to measure people’s preferences. Another way is to observe how they spend their money.”
What they found is that “real estate prices are often much higher in 15-minute neighborhoods than in sprawl. That suggests that there are plenty of homes in the suburbs but an undersupply of housing in walkable neighborhoods relative to demand.”
The Post suggests: “But as cities across the country confront housing shortages, empty office buildings and public safety concerns, 15-minute neighborhoods could offer a way back to urban vitality. Plus, if walkable neighborhoods were more common, they would probably become cheaper.”
Where does that leave us?
One point is that we should break down the survey at the micro level.
What we see is that, overall, about 42 percent of respondents prefer smaller houses within walking distance of schools, stores and restaurants.
Drilling down, we found 56 percent of Democratic-leaning respondents, 54 percent of postgraduate respondents, and 55 percent of those under the age of 30 would be willing to live in smaller, more walkable neighborhoods.
But there is a barrier: “Yet the reality is that, in most metro areas, those communities are few & far between—and they’re typically too expensive for many people to afford.”
This data seems to open the door for less sprawl and more walkable neighborhoods, if we could find a way to actually build them and make them affordable.
One of our commenters noted that such duplexes and condos in Davis actually go for a good deal less than single-family detached homes. The question is whether you could get someone to drop $600K in Davis for a condo when they can buy a single-family detached home in a neighboring community for the same price, with a yard and more space.
We have seen California in recent years attempt to better prioritize denser housing by rezoning neighborhoods that were once zoned exclusively for single-family homes. And yet, despite fear by many that this will lead to problems, most studies have found a rather limited impact.
As the post noted, “Residents sometimes object to these changes, arguing that duplexes and apartments will bring more traffic or otherwise change their communities for the worse.”
That’s the dynamic we see in Davis. The proposed Village Farms project, for example, has seen the number of units increase, the density increase, and the number of single-family detached homes decrease—but during public comment a few weeks ago people were complaining about density and traffic, and no one argued for increased units and density.
Most of the people pushing back are existing residents who bought their larger homes when the market was still relatively affordable.
Davis faces a second problem. While the demographics for those who prefer smaller homes aligns with the demographics of the demand for housing in Davis, it doesn’t align with the preferences of existing homeowners who seemingly prefer larger housing with less density out of fear of traffic or other changes—even as the status quo actually lends itself to driver-centric lifestyle increasing traffic, while vastly changing the demographics and character of this community.
This is the tension that current leaders must navigate—the problem is doing so when the council seems conflict-averse.
The problem here is people trying to control how other people live coupled with those boomer Malthusians who believe that if we don’t build it they won’t come. The result is a community that has under built what has been needed to match its economic growth trend and outsourced much of its talent to surrounding communities for a generation. The answer is easy. We need to over build all types of housing to return this community to a healthy market with choices for all demographics. Should we build this or that? Yes we need to build it all to play catch up to address the anti-growth folly of the last 25 years.
Ron Glick said … “The result is a community that has under built what has been needed to match its economic growth trend …”
Ron, what economic growth trend? The economic activity in Davis has been shrinkage, not growth.
Not if you include UCD
No Ron, UCD’s economic growth is not in the City. And their economic growth on campus and in the City Limits has been rather measured. Look at the Davis campus year to year employment numbers. It wouldn’t surprise me if the number of Davis campus jobs is less in 2024 than it was in 2014 and even less than it was in 2004.
Lies damn lies and statistics Matt. You are always talking about regional housing demand but when it comes to trend economic growth you pretend that what goes on south of Russell Blvd. somehow shouldn’t be relevant to housing demand north of Russell Blvd.
I’d take that bet because UCD has added how many students? 10,000? 20,000? What’s the student staff ratio 3:1? 4:1?
Your argument only holds if you ignore the largest employer in the region. Sort of like before Nixon went to China and Taiwan was on the UN Security Council because the US was pretending Red China didn’t exist.
Ron, the numbers I have cover UCD’s 10-year period from FY 2011 through FY 2020. I will put in a request tomorrow to UCD for the years since 2020
FY 2011 Faculty 1,511
FY 2020 Faculty 1,620
That is a 7.2% increase over 10 years … which equals a compound annual growth rate of 0.78%. That is even lower than the apartment vacancy rate during those years
FY 2011 Lecturers 190
FY 2020 Lecturers 269
That is a 41.6% increase over 10 years … a compound annual growth rate of 3.95%.
FY 2011 Non Faculty Academic Employees 1,051
FY 2020 Non Faculty Academic Employees 898
That is a 14.6% decrease over 10 years … a compound annual negative growth rate of 1.73%.
FY 2011 Administrators 906
FY 2020 Administrators 2,411
That is a 166% increase over 10 years … a compound annual growth rate of 11.49%
FY 2011 Student Employees and Teaching Assistants 2,567
FY 2020 Student Employees and Teaching Assistants and TAs 2,995
That is a 166% increase over 10 years … a compound annual growth rate of 1.73%
With the exception of Administrators the growth has been quite modest.
Ron, setting aside what the numbers tell us, how is the economic growth of UCD, economic growth for the City? It is economic growth for the region, but the City is left behind when the distribution of the UCD economy is distributed to the regional players.
With respect to the regional housing demand created by UCD alumni, virtually all of that demand does not come from UCD itself, but rather comes from third parties. UCD definitely does own some residential property in Davis, so they do contribute an infinitesimally small amount to the City’s housing demand, but it is just that … infinitesimally small.
Huh?
UCD literally creates most of the housing demand in the city of Davis, directly or indirectly.
Don,
— the State of California Department of Finance reports that the 2024 population of Davis is 65,054.
— UCD reports that 3,597 Davis Campus employees live in the City of Davis.
— The US Census reports that 17,581 of the City’s residents are between the ages of 20 and 24.
— Together those two numbers equal 21,178, which is less than 1/3 of the housing provided in the City.
— If you add in 1/4 of the 7,274 census aged 15 to 19 that gets you to 23,000, still only 35% of the total.
— If you assume two units of housing demand for the 3,597 UCD employees you get to 26,600 and 40.9%.
Bottom-line your statement that “UCD literally creates most of the housing demand in the city of Davis” isn’t supported by the numbers.
Uh huh.
As of April 2024
UC Davis employees, total #
Management 1114
Non-faculty non-student academics 2696
Faculty 3233
Student employees 9860
Non-management staff 22114
subtotal: 39017
Medical Center 12649
total excluding Med Center 26368
There’s your “latent demand.”
Plus Don, in any chosen evaluation area, the existing supply of housing isn’t economic growth.
Further, the financial studies completed by Paul Navasio when he was CFO of the City show that rather than economic growth housing is an economic drain for the City.
Matt you are hilarious. First of all you need 20 year numbers since that is when Davis stopped building houses to meet trend growth. Secondly who determines what growth is “modest?”
You are so transparent. After arguing for years that housing is a regional issue you now want to argue the city of Davis is an island and that UCD has nothing to do with housing in the city.
Honestly Matt you are being obtuse and anyone who reads this can see it. But go ahead spend your day playing with your numbers digging yourself in deeper.
Ron, you must forget to put on your hearing aids prior to reading the Vanguard. Either that or you are losing your memory. I have been crystal clear over and over and over again that Davis needs affordable houses. Our housing market is top heavy, with very few houses valued at between $800,000 and $600,000, and even fewer houses valued at less than $600,000.
I have also been crystal clear over and over and over again that Davis needs to achieve economic growth by adding intellectual capital-centric jobs to its anemic local jobs portfolio. You clearly haven’t been listening.
Regarding the economic growth of UCD, how does building houses in the City of Davis affect whether UCD grows or not. Does UCD check into the City of Davis housing supply when it decides to add a faculty member? Does UCD check into the City of Davis housing supply when it decides how many acceptance letters it sends to students? If you can explain how the housing inventory in the City controls the economic growth of UCD I am all ears.
Regarding the subjective determination about economic growth, there are many “right” answers. For an individual investor an economic growth rate that results in a doubling of their investment portfolio every 10 years (a compound growth rate of 8% per year) is considered to be acceptable. For the Federal Government an economic growth rate of GDP between 2% and 4% is considered to be acceptable. What do you see as an acceptable and/or “modest” growth rate?
Housing actually is a societal issue, but the State of California has chosen to kick the can down the road to the individual localities, and in doing it the way they have they have created an unfunded mandate for affordable homes, and also ignored the characteristics of the market that would produce more affordable housing if the State let the market work by giving the RHNA mandates to the counties and then let each county work with its cities to achieve the desired results.
One other point. It is this type of policy making, where certain demographics try to dictate how others should live that has been dividing the democratic coalition, sending working class voters, who can’t afford the conditions imposed upon them by people who are the least effected by those policies that drove many of the demographic changes in the 2024 election.
Many people prefer to live in densely populated (walkable) cities but many others insist on living in spread out rural and suburban areas. Some refuse to give up their vehicles, big yards, private driveways, garages and carports. In some households it’s one vehicle per adult. They don’t want to park on the street in front of their dwellings or to drive around looking for parking when they return home. The so-called American dream is for people to own their own homes, not live in apartments and condos their entire lives. I don’t want that, but for many it’s a life-long pursuit.
I think the key here is balance. We need a diverse housing market, with property types at all price-points, and to have whatever housing we build be in balance with all the needs of our city: economic / environmental / Socail etc.
Right now we are badly OUT of balance. We have student housing, which is far under demand, and we have single family housing, which is also under demand.
Because a LOT of single family homes are in fact rentals, we need to focus first on making more student housing, especially in infill opportunities close to campus. The new downtown general plan is a great start, but the city could actually be doing more. I have read recently that a lot of cities will encourage this kind of densification by helping to pave the way for densification by providing process and financial incentives.
The problem is that process is going to be very slow, even with incentives.
So the peripheral projects have to be in the crosshairs of this program. They are not as convenient to downtown and campus though… so while in the core you can easily provide housing without worrying too much about parking, that becomes less tenable as you get further away from campus… which means that ANY housing you put on the edge needs to be planned for transit or VERY good bike connectivity from the very start.
This is probably the biggest objection I have to the concepts for the current peripheral plans. They arent focusing on affordable multi-famiy and they are planning with the assumption that EVERYONE who lives there is going to drive to everything. There is nothing “Walkable” about either proposal, and it is funny that we asked them to score themselves on the LEED-ND rubric earlier… a construct that is all about walkable cities…. its like asking coal fired power plants to compare themselves to each-other on carbon impacts.
Walkable neighborhoods dont “just happen”. The market forces resist them, as is detailed here. I read a statistic recently that 60% of millennials say they prefer to live in an urban core, while only 40% of baby boomers / gen X would say the same.
In davis, we ONLY have builders thinking about the current boomer market. This is where government is important to step in in places where the free market fails us. Of course people want to live in huge homes and drive everywhere and for gas to be cheap and there be no traffic in front of us, and for the energy heating our homes to be free… of course everyone wants that… only its impossible.
The middle option is to create balance… a lot more rentals for students, and a lot more equity-participating “missing middle” forms of housing including townhomes / Condos / Co-Ops. THAT is what we need to be building. It REALLY doesnt matter if there is some hypothetical person who might perfer to live in a single family home in woodland and commute rather than live in a townhome / condo here. Lets build for a diverse housing supply that is balance with our needs. We cant get there by building mostly more single family homes.
“I read a statistic recently that 60% of millennials say they prefer to live in an urban core”
Well, sort of. Here’s the source of that statistic.
“Wealthy millennials are keeping big cities alive.
As the era of remote work sent many millennials into the suburbs to snap up homes, the wealthiest members of the generation have stayed put in their urban oases.
That’s according to a new report by global luxury real estate brand Engel & Völkers, which found that more than half of millennials earning over $250,000 plan to sell their home this year or next — and most aren’t looking for picket fences in exchange.
Sixty percent of this cohort is planning to buy a home in an urban city, while 40% hope to buy in the suburbs. Among wealthy millennials, 83% already own homes in urban areas.
One of the reasons why might surprise you: It’s so they can live with their parents. The majority of the cohort said their parents currently live with them or intend to live with them in the future, which is in line with the pandemic-era trend toward multigenerational living.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthy-millennials-buying-homes-cities-versus-suburbs-exurbs-2021-9?op=1
“Lets build for a diverse housing supply that is balance with our needs.”
What has been missing from the discussion on this topic is the reality that it takes a willing developer to build anything. It doesn’t matter what any of the commentators here want if there is not someone willing to take on the risk of the project. Developers tend to build that which they have done before since their previous experience provides them with the tools necessary to mitigate the risks of a similar type of project. A builder with decades of experience building detached single family homes and three-story walk-up apartments is therefore unlikely to propose a major project filled with townhouses and high-rise condominiums. In order to get said developer to build the types of housing that Tim and others want will require incentives to help mitigate the risk of the new development types. Incentives that are only available from the City, and are only beneficial in advance of a proposal being submitted. Once the project is in the pipeline, the best that can be hoped for are marginal changes. Complaining that those marginal changes are not ‘good enough’ is functionally no different than advocating against the project. In short, the apparent search for perfection on display here is completely counterproductive.
If we want ‘missing middle’ housing, (which I agree is preferred) then we need to advocate with the City Council for those types of housing in all future projects, so that projects being submitted 2-5 years in the future may be incentivized for it.
“We cant get there by building mostly more single family homes.”
We can’t get there unless we are willing to support new housing, which means supporting the projects already in the pipeline and working for better projects in the future.
I agree with Mark. The only way that developers are going to achieve “missing middle” and/or truly affordable housing is for the City to create incentives for developers to come forward with project proposals that have the affordability characteristics we desire … and need. Let them know that if they come forward with a proposal with X Y and Z attributes it will be quickly processed and all its clear and compelling positives put before the voters very quickly.
“Walkability” increases housing cost.
Increased density of new construction in older neighborhoods can make those neighborhoods less affordable.
Integrating retail and food service into residential settings is challenging, especially in suburbs.
The principles of new urbanism were developed primarily for declining urban centers. They may not be useful for suburban developments in a small rural city like Davis.
Retail, in particular, is unlikely to occur without certain population thresholds already present.
Example: The Cannery. The farmers’ market is being discontinued. Retailers have not been willing to locate there. The reasons should be pretty obvious.
Walkability requires that robust and efficient public transit already be in place or that significant retail and food businesses are already present.
Bottom line: you rarely see a “walkable” neighborhood designed and built from the start on the edge of town that achieves any or even most of the purported planning goals.
Example: Village Homes (which was a peripheral development when it was built).
They become nice neighborhoods with lots of open space amenities, walkable in the sense of people gathering outside more than in conventional neighborhoods, great for biking. But also relatively expensive, and without the stores and businesses that were expected.
Here’s a fun guide: https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Davis
Note that the most “walkable” neighborhoods in Davis are all in or adjacent to downtown. You will not get those amenities in a new neighborhood on the edge of town.
I agree with most of your comment Don. You need the commercial and the transit for walkability to be real, and you need them planned from the start, which is unfortunately rare. Walkable (denser) communities are more desireable, and do command a premium, which likely would fade if more walkable places were available.
But that kinda skewers the other argument made a few weeks ago that developers are building the single family homes because that was “what the market wants”.. right? It also undermines the argument that David makes here that some people might prefer single family homes in woodland rather than a walkable neighborhood here. So long as the superior walkable housing is filled and the development clears the market, we really shouldn’t care.
But it isn’t true that those kinds of walkable neighborhoods cannot exist on the edge of town. They absolutely can.
They are called “streetcar suburbs” or “transit oriented development” and there are PLENTY of examples of cities creating little transit-connected satellite semi-urban villages on the outskirts with moderately dense housing, some mixed use commercial for local service, and a transit connection to the city center. This has been successfully done in MANY places around the world.
Here is a great video about the streetcar suburb from one of my favorite urban planning channels: Lots of images of riverdale which is a streetcar suburb of toronto. https://youtu.be/MWsGBRdK2N0?si=h9xh3ZxLe2yaz_Gw
And here is a PDF that lists a number of examples of success stories in transit oriented development: https://www.nhhsrail.com/pdfs/TODcasestudydraft_100311.pdf
There is only one reason why we cant develop this kind of thing in Davis: Measure J
We absolutely could produce a string of mixed-use, moderate density housing and plan a transit line running from campus, through downtown, up F street and around the mace curve to the DiSC site. It is the only plan for housing that ticks all the boxes we want out of housing in this town. But because we have created a property-by-property approval process driven by developers with ZERO master planning function, there is no way we can make something that nice, and we are left with the choice of crappy car-served single family tract homes, or nothing.
I really dislike being forced to choose between bad and worse… especially when good IS possible.
“Housing is a drain for the city.”
So I guess we shouldn’t build any. Is that your argument?
I guess those parcel taxes we added since the Navazio study don’t make a dent at all. What year was that. And how much money does UCD bring into the local economy? Two billion a year or is it three. Your arguments only work in the tunnel vision of your complacency.
Census data showing the impact of UCD on Davis housing ignores all those people who live in surrounding communities that would live in Davis if Davis had met trend growth for housing.
You are moving the goal posts Ron. The point that was made was about economic growth
Specifically you said … “The result is a community that has under built what has been needed to match its economic growth trend …”
To which I replied … “Ron, what economic growth trend? The economic activity in Davis has been shrinkage, not growth.”
And you then said … “Not if you include UCD.”
But with that said, let’s look at “all those people who live in surrounding communities that would live in Davis if Davis had met trend growth for housing.” Your statement relies on conceptual demand … or as some might call it latent demand. The reasons why that demand is conceptual/latent are numerous.
(1) For some it is because a unit of housing in Davis is not available when they need it
(2) For others it is because they cannot afford a unit of housing in Davis.
(3) For others it is because alternatives exist to a unit of housing in Davis that are more attractive to them.
Feel free to add other reasons, but I believe those are the big three. For all your referenced “people who live in surrounding communities that would live in Davis” My suspicion is that the folks in (2) and (3) far, far outnumber the folks in (1).
If that is the case, then building more $1 million sale price houses in Davis is not going to cause very many of the “people who live in surrounding communities that would live in Davis” to convert their latent demand for a hosue in Davis into active demand. Now if we built lots of $600,000 homes in Davis that would address bot category (2) and category (1), but chances are that very few people in category (3) would feel that a very small $600,000 house in Davis would meet their life style needs as well as their current home in the surrounding community they live in.
One more thought on the shallowness and absurdity of Matt’s analysis. What about retirees? They don’t disappear or turn their homes over to the replacements. I know lots of people who are retired from UCD who are still live in town and are likely to do so for 20-30 years.
Let’s assume that every ten years 1/3 of UC D employees retire. How much demand for new housing does that generate?
Ron, retirees living in place past their retirement event(s) does not create demand for new housing because they already have their housing. To include a continuing resident (who owns their own home) in the count of “demand for new homes” would be double counting.
No, but the people who replace them do.
No Ron they don’t, because when the retiree eventually sells their home to “the person who replaces them” that buyer is (A) already a homeowner due to their purchase, and (B) already part of the ambient housing demand when they make the purchase.
In addition, the person who replaces the retiree at UCD (if the retiree is replaced) does become part of the latent housing demand … subject to the three reasons why lots of housing demand in Davis is latent rather than active.
BTW, when a current UCD employee who owns a house in Davis chooses to move to Woodland, what happens to housing demand in Davis?
Matt you are ridiculous. If a person retires and takes 5, 10 or twenty more years to leave a residence the person replacing them needs a different place to live. Denying this generates demand for new housing is dumber than dumb.
Ron, I am sorry that you can’t seem to understand the difference between active demand and latent demand.
Further, any individual’s need for housing can be met by existing housing or new housing. Not everyone wants to live in new housing. Lots of people prefer established neighborhoods over neighborhoods in new developments.
Ron here is an example of the difference between active demand and latent demand.
Weight Watchers looks at both you and I as part of the market demand for their products and services. However even though I clearly fit their profile, I am not part of their active demand. I am only latent demand for them.