The title comes from a debate that stems from the county general plan update proposals and well beyond that. The notion has come down from the county that the city of Davis opposes such growth proposals because this is a rich, white, elitist town. While in a number of ways, that is arguably true, I have argued against this point repeatedly because I think the center of the motivation against growth has been not only about protecting agricultural land and open space, but also procedural points that the city of Davis and not the county use have land use authority on the city edge.
Where this issue begins to gain resonance in terms of housing developments, is that as we look at proposed housing we see designs that are increasingly for less dense, large homes, on large lots. Even affordable housing requirements have a number of problems. The number of set-asides is fairly small. Those that are set aside end up being limited equity homes, which make it easy for an individual to buy a home but difficult for an individual to improve their lot in life and buy another home down the line. The alternative to the limited equity model has been basically the policy whereby a person would purchase a house for a given price and sell it two years later at a market level for a huge expenditure. Needless to say, that is not a sustainable policy and it results in a loss of affordable homes.
However, in between the true affordable limited equity home and the market price home is basically no man’s land. If Davis wishes to produce more affordable housing to the average middle income person, this is the bridge they need to gulf. How do you produce the $300,000 to $400,000 home rather than the $150,000 or the $600,000 plus home?
One suggestion has been to build enough homes to increase the supply enough that the housing prices will come down. That is a tricky strategy however because you have no a closed market for homes but rather an open, regional market for homes. That regional demand keeps the prices fairly high across the board. In short, I do not believe you can build your way out of this problem without producing enough problems that reduce the quality of life in Davis.
I do not have great answers on this question, but I do think that large amounts of growth will not solve the problem unless it makes Davis a less desirable destination, which I think is not anyone’s goal when they advocate for growth. On the other hand, current housing policies are going to end up creating an elite Davis filled with Republicans.
So I have two suggestions, one of my own and one from another individual. My own suggestions is that we start by building smaller, denser homes on small lots, possibly duplexes in an effort to produce a market of $300,000 to $400,000 homes. As I went around town, there are actually such homes on the market for that value. These would be small homes, two to a lot, that would sell for a lower price than the average home which is far larger.
A second suggestion comes from my source and it is an intriguing idea on how to open up the housing market without large amounts of new growth. It has to do with owner occupancy. The idea is that we require owner occupancy of single-family homes. There are a large amount of homes in town that are not on the market for single-family residences because they are not owner occupied and instead rented out. The effect of that is to take a large number of would-be residences off the housing market. The city would change zoning laws to require owner occupancy. That would mean a large number of property owning companies would need to sell their homes and place them on the market, producing a good amount of homes for a decent price.
There still would be the need for new development, to serve the needs of those who are currently renting in town. There the city would designed new rental units and cooperative living arrangements to enable a place for the current renters of single-family homes to reside. This transition would take some time, but ultimately help free up a large number of homes for home ownership while still providing the current residents of those homes a good and affordable place to live. If done correctly, this could be achieved with a minimal amount of upheaval and controversy.
I think we all agree that current policies are not sustainable. Those of us who have concerns about protection of agricultural land and open space, would still like to be able to provide more affordable housing to residents and potential residents in Davis. However, that housing should not come at some of the huge costs of current policies. Moreover, current growth proposals largely do not address these issues.
One final point, new housing should not look like the cookie-cutter tract homes of many of the new subdivisions and neighborhoods. We need to strongly encourage housing construction that produces good and unique character of neighborhoods, so that they do not look like the mere extension of suburbia that you see in some of Davis’ newer neighborhoods and many of Natomas’.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“My own suggestions is that we start by building smaller, denser homes on small lots, possibly duplexes in an effort to produce a market of $300,000 to $400,000 homes.”
I completely agree. One type of home that the market has missed is what I will call the PK home – Post Kids. The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room, a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage. Everything else would be small, including the yard. The reason for the big garage is because PK people have lots of stuff and there has to be plenty of storage. Once you get the PK people to move, that frees up the bigger houses for families. Ideally, the PK homes would be situated within walking distance of downtown.
An incentive to encourage people to move might be allowing them to carry some or all prop 13 tax savings to the new house. SAH
“My own suggestions is that we start by building smaller, denser homes on small lots, possibly duplexes in an effort to produce a market of $300,000 to $400,000 homes.”
I completely agree. One type of home that the market has missed is what I will call the PK home – Post Kids. The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room, a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage. Everything else would be small, including the yard. The reason for the big garage is because PK people have lots of stuff and there has to be plenty of storage. Once you get the PK people to move, that frees up the bigger houses for families. Ideally, the PK homes would be situated within walking distance of downtown.
An incentive to encourage people to move might be allowing them to carry some or all prop 13 tax savings to the new house. SAH
“My own suggestions is that we start by building smaller, denser homes on small lots, possibly duplexes in an effort to produce a market of $300,000 to $400,000 homes.”
I completely agree. One type of home that the market has missed is what I will call the PK home – Post Kids. The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room, a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage. Everything else would be small, including the yard. The reason for the big garage is because PK people have lots of stuff and there has to be plenty of storage. Once you get the PK people to move, that frees up the bigger houses for families. Ideally, the PK homes would be situated within walking distance of downtown.
An incentive to encourage people to move might be allowing them to carry some or all prop 13 tax savings to the new house. SAH
“My own suggestions is that we start by building smaller, denser homes on small lots, possibly duplexes in an effort to produce a market of $300,000 to $400,000 homes.”
I completely agree. One type of home that the market has missed is what I will call the PK home – Post Kids. The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room, a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage. Everything else would be small, including the yard. The reason for the big garage is because PK people have lots of stuff and there has to be plenty of storage. Once you get the PK people to move, that frees up the bigger houses for families. Ideally, the PK homes would be situated within walking distance of downtown.
An incentive to encourage people to move might be allowing them to carry some or all prop 13 tax savings to the new house. SAH
Interesting comments but you loose me with the dig at Republicans… they pay taxes too, need places to leave, and shock beyond all shocks… not all Republicans are rich. How do you think that you can reach a consensus within our community on housing issues when you start off the conversation by pissing off at least a third of the population?
Anyways, some of the specific ideas you raised in this entry are interesting but are off the mark in my mind. First, anything that would reduce a landowner’s rights over their property will engender significant opposition. Not all landlords in Davis are large, nameless corporate entities. Many are families that for what ever reason, decide to rent instead of sell thier homes. The recent housing market turned everything upside down, but with the current changes occuring within the market, it appears that the market is begining to self-correct. Second, the premise that a County shouldn’t be building housing around the edge of a city and that should be the sole discreation of the city is also flawed. Existing law requires Counties to have to build their “fair share” of housing within the region. If you don’t place housing close to existing urban centers, then you will have to build entirely new infrastructure for that housing – that in itself would be growth inducing because infrastructure, such as water, sewer, etc… are the limiting factors traditionally with growth. This leds to the larger discussion about how does a region, such as a city and the county, work cooperatively on housing issues? If one part of that equation refuses to even talk about building new housing, how can there be a cohesive strategy? This also gets to the point you made about design and density – if there is not coordination between the governmental entities on a growth strategy and the landuse restrictions associated with that strategy, then how do you prevent developers from gaming one entity against the other?
Growth will occur. Even if we lock the borders of our state, even our county, there will still be growth – more births than deaths. As a community, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and start having meaningful dialogues about the future of our town. And from my prespective, just saying no isn’t a good option. Just my 2 cents on a Saturday morning.
Interesting comments but you loose me with the dig at Republicans… they pay taxes too, need places to leave, and shock beyond all shocks… not all Republicans are rich. How do you think that you can reach a consensus within our community on housing issues when you start off the conversation by pissing off at least a third of the population?
Anyways, some of the specific ideas you raised in this entry are interesting but are off the mark in my mind. First, anything that would reduce a landowner’s rights over their property will engender significant opposition. Not all landlords in Davis are large, nameless corporate entities. Many are families that for what ever reason, decide to rent instead of sell thier homes. The recent housing market turned everything upside down, but with the current changes occuring within the market, it appears that the market is begining to self-correct. Second, the premise that a County shouldn’t be building housing around the edge of a city and that should be the sole discreation of the city is also flawed. Existing law requires Counties to have to build their “fair share” of housing within the region. If you don’t place housing close to existing urban centers, then you will have to build entirely new infrastructure for that housing – that in itself would be growth inducing because infrastructure, such as water, sewer, etc… are the limiting factors traditionally with growth. This leds to the larger discussion about how does a region, such as a city and the county, work cooperatively on housing issues? If one part of that equation refuses to even talk about building new housing, how can there be a cohesive strategy? This also gets to the point you made about design and density – if there is not coordination between the governmental entities on a growth strategy and the landuse restrictions associated with that strategy, then how do you prevent developers from gaming one entity against the other?
Growth will occur. Even if we lock the borders of our state, even our county, there will still be growth – more births than deaths. As a community, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and start having meaningful dialogues about the future of our town. And from my prespective, just saying no isn’t a good option. Just my 2 cents on a Saturday morning.
Interesting comments but you loose me with the dig at Republicans… they pay taxes too, need places to leave, and shock beyond all shocks… not all Republicans are rich. How do you think that you can reach a consensus within our community on housing issues when you start off the conversation by pissing off at least a third of the population?
Anyways, some of the specific ideas you raised in this entry are interesting but are off the mark in my mind. First, anything that would reduce a landowner’s rights over their property will engender significant opposition. Not all landlords in Davis are large, nameless corporate entities. Many are families that for what ever reason, decide to rent instead of sell thier homes. The recent housing market turned everything upside down, but with the current changes occuring within the market, it appears that the market is begining to self-correct. Second, the premise that a County shouldn’t be building housing around the edge of a city and that should be the sole discreation of the city is also flawed. Existing law requires Counties to have to build their “fair share” of housing within the region. If you don’t place housing close to existing urban centers, then you will have to build entirely new infrastructure for that housing – that in itself would be growth inducing because infrastructure, such as water, sewer, etc… are the limiting factors traditionally with growth. This leds to the larger discussion about how does a region, such as a city and the county, work cooperatively on housing issues? If one part of that equation refuses to even talk about building new housing, how can there be a cohesive strategy? This also gets to the point you made about design and density – if there is not coordination between the governmental entities on a growth strategy and the landuse restrictions associated with that strategy, then how do you prevent developers from gaming one entity against the other?
Growth will occur. Even if we lock the borders of our state, even our county, there will still be growth – more births than deaths. As a community, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and start having meaningful dialogues about the future of our town. And from my prespective, just saying no isn’t a good option. Just my 2 cents on a Saturday morning.
Interesting comments but you loose me with the dig at Republicans… they pay taxes too, need places to leave, and shock beyond all shocks… not all Republicans are rich. How do you think that you can reach a consensus within our community on housing issues when you start off the conversation by pissing off at least a third of the population?
Anyways, some of the specific ideas you raised in this entry are interesting but are off the mark in my mind. First, anything that would reduce a landowner’s rights over their property will engender significant opposition. Not all landlords in Davis are large, nameless corporate entities. Many are families that for what ever reason, decide to rent instead of sell thier homes. The recent housing market turned everything upside down, but with the current changes occuring within the market, it appears that the market is begining to self-correct. Second, the premise that a County shouldn’t be building housing around the edge of a city and that should be the sole discreation of the city is also flawed. Existing law requires Counties to have to build their “fair share” of housing within the region. If you don’t place housing close to existing urban centers, then you will have to build entirely new infrastructure for that housing – that in itself would be growth inducing because infrastructure, such as water, sewer, etc… are the limiting factors traditionally with growth. This leds to the larger discussion about how does a region, such as a city and the county, work cooperatively on housing issues? If one part of that equation refuses to even talk about building new housing, how can there be a cohesive strategy? This also gets to the point you made about design and density – if there is not coordination between the governmental entities on a growth strategy and the landuse restrictions associated with that strategy, then how do you prevent developers from gaming one entity against the other?
Growth will occur. Even if we lock the borders of our state, even our county, there will still be growth – more births than deaths. As a community, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and start having meaningful dialogues about the future of our town. And from my prespective, just saying no isn’t a good option. Just my 2 cents on a Saturday morning.
Even Republicans can see the light when exposed to the Davis ethos.. redemption is possible.
Even Republicans can see the light when exposed to the Davis ethos.. redemption is possible.
Even Republicans can see the light when exposed to the Davis ethos.. redemption is possible.
Even Republicans can see the light when exposed to the Davis ethos.. redemption is possible.
The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room,a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage.
I challenge whether most PK households would prefer this configuration and its problematic from an urban design perspective. I imagine a PK household would want at least one second bedroom for an office or overnight guests. We’re taking up valuable real estate that can otherwise be developed for the inherently more affordable housing so PK folks can store their stuff. The design implications of this are severe and there are many creative design options around this. To put this into perspective, with this suggestion what you would be looking at is a front facade of at least 2/3 garage. Not a “neighborhood character enhancing” feature. There is no justifiable reason for a PK household to need more than a 2 car tandem garage if there is adequate storage space inside, including, perhaps as an option, a finished attic.
Duplexes are not necessary either. A good urban designer can go up to 40 units/acre with single family townhomes that would be much more aesthetically pleasing. In surveys most people thought the density was closer to 10 units/acre. Metro Place in Sacramento is an example. More locally, Aggie Village is another.
The configuration can be figured out by good urban designers and architechts. But there are a myriad of inherently more permanently affordable housing types that are underrepresented here.
The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room,a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage.
I challenge whether most PK households would prefer this configuration and its problematic from an urban design perspective. I imagine a PK household would want at least one second bedroom for an office or overnight guests. We’re taking up valuable real estate that can otherwise be developed for the inherently more affordable housing so PK folks can store their stuff. The design implications of this are severe and there are many creative design options around this. To put this into perspective, with this suggestion what you would be looking at is a front facade of at least 2/3 garage. Not a “neighborhood character enhancing” feature. There is no justifiable reason for a PK household to need more than a 2 car tandem garage if there is adequate storage space inside, including, perhaps as an option, a finished attic.
Duplexes are not necessary either. A good urban designer can go up to 40 units/acre with single family townhomes that would be much more aesthetically pleasing. In surveys most people thought the density was closer to 10 units/acre. Metro Place in Sacramento is an example. More locally, Aggie Village is another.
The configuration can be figured out by good urban designers and architechts. But there are a myriad of inherently more permanently affordable housing types that are underrepresented here.
The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room,a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage.
I challenge whether most PK households would prefer this configuration and its problematic from an urban design perspective. I imagine a PK household would want at least one second bedroom for an office or overnight guests. We’re taking up valuable real estate that can otherwise be developed for the inherently more affordable housing so PK folks can store their stuff. The design implications of this are severe and there are many creative design options around this. To put this into perspective, with this suggestion what you would be looking at is a front facade of at least 2/3 garage. Not a “neighborhood character enhancing” feature. There is no justifiable reason for a PK household to need more than a 2 car tandem garage if there is adequate storage space inside, including, perhaps as an option, a finished attic.
Duplexes are not necessary either. A good urban designer can go up to 40 units/acre with single family townhomes that would be much more aesthetically pleasing. In surveys most people thought the density was closer to 10 units/acre. Metro Place in Sacramento is an example. More locally, Aggie Village is another.
The configuration can be figured out by good urban designers and architechts. But there are a myriad of inherently more permanently affordable housing types that are underrepresented here.
The PK home would have a large master bedroom, a large living room,a nice kitchen and a 3-4 car garage.
I challenge whether most PK households would prefer this configuration and its problematic from an urban design perspective. I imagine a PK household would want at least one second bedroom for an office or overnight guests. We’re taking up valuable real estate that can otherwise be developed for the inherently more affordable housing so PK folks can store their stuff. The design implications of this are severe and there are many creative design options around this. To put this into perspective, with this suggestion what you would be looking at is a front facade of at least 2/3 garage. Not a “neighborhood character enhancing” feature. There is no justifiable reason for a PK household to need more than a 2 car tandem garage if there is adequate storage space inside, including, perhaps as an option, a finished attic.
Duplexes are not necessary either. A good urban designer can go up to 40 units/acre with single family townhomes that would be much more aesthetically pleasing. In surveys most people thought the density was closer to 10 units/acre. Metro Place in Sacramento is an example. More locally, Aggie Village is another.
The configuration can be figured out by good urban designers and architechts. But there are a myriad of inherently more permanently affordable housing types that are underrepresented here.
. . .new housing should not look like the cookie-cutter tract homes of many of the new subdivisions and neighborhoods.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
Average size: 960 – 1400 sq. ft. Still buildable for a reasonable price, once you get past the exhorbitant costs for land, development, and permits. Much more feasible in lesser-developed areas of the County than the “major” cities.
. . .new housing should not look like the cookie-cutter tract homes of many of the new subdivisions and neighborhoods.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
Average size: 960 – 1400 sq. ft. Still buildable for a reasonable price, once you get past the exhorbitant costs for land, development, and permits. Much more feasible in lesser-developed areas of the County than the “major” cities.
. . .new housing should not look like the cookie-cutter tract homes of many of the new subdivisions and neighborhoods.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
Average size: 960 – 1400 sq. ft. Still buildable for a reasonable price, once you get past the exhorbitant costs for land, development, and permits. Much more feasible in lesser-developed areas of the County than the “major” cities.
. . .new housing should not look like the cookie-cutter tract homes of many of the new subdivisions and neighborhoods.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
Average size: 960 – 1400 sq. ft. Still buildable for a reasonable price, once you get past the exhorbitant costs for land, development, and permits. Much more feasible in lesser-developed areas of the County than the “major” cities.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
The Stanley Davis homes are not on small lots. The lots are larger than those in Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. For reference, the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre. That is not going to drive us toward affordability.
But you’re right on the house size. We do need to be looking at that square footage range. That may not be what growing families are looking for (though plenty do live in the SD homes), but perhaps what the PK households would be looking for. The market can sort itself out. I have no concern that they would sell if well designed and with amenities nearby. The real issue is the cost of land. Small homes on small lots (i.e. higher density), is what makes and keeps homes affordable.
I would also like to see “sweat equity” homes where potential homebuyers, likely young individuals/couples, help build their home on the weekends over a course of the year. This greatly reduces the cost of the home. Also motivates them to stay rather than quickly sell for a profit because there is so much personal effort required. This was done recently in North Sacramento and was a huge success.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
The Stanley Davis homes are not on small lots. The lots are larger than those in Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. For reference, the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre. That is not going to drive us toward affordability.
But you’re right on the house size. We do need to be looking at that square footage range. That may not be what growing families are looking for (though plenty do live in the SD homes), but perhaps what the PK households would be looking for. The market can sort itself out. I have no concern that they would sell if well designed and with amenities nearby. The real issue is the cost of land. Small homes on small lots (i.e. higher density), is what makes and keeps homes affordable.
I would also like to see “sweat equity” homes where potential homebuyers, likely young individuals/couples, help build their home on the weekends over a course of the year. This greatly reduces the cost of the home. Also motivates them to stay rather than quickly sell for a profit because there is so much personal effort required. This was done recently in North Sacramento and was a huge success.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
The Stanley Davis homes are not on small lots. The lots are larger than those in Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. For reference, the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre. That is not going to drive us toward affordability.
But you’re right on the house size. We do need to be looking at that square footage range. That may not be what growing families are looking for (though plenty do live in the SD homes), but perhaps what the PK households would be looking for. The market can sort itself out. I have no concern that they would sell if well designed and with amenities nearby. The real issue is the cost of land. Small homes on small lots (i.e. higher density), is what makes and keeps homes affordable.
I would also like to see “sweat equity” homes where potential homebuyers, likely young individuals/couples, help build their home on the weekends over a course of the year. This greatly reduces the cost of the home. Also motivates them to stay rather than quickly sell for a profit because there is so much personal effort required. This was done recently in North Sacramento and was a huge success.
Offering smaller homes on smaller lots, with a narrow range of optional amenities and floor plans is precisely how builders/developers get costs down. The Stanley-Davis houses built in East Davis in the 50’s are a good example – above or below E. 8th.
The Stanley Davis homes are not on small lots. The lots are larger than those in Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. For reference, the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre. That is not going to drive us toward affordability.
But you’re right on the house size. We do need to be looking at that square footage range. That may not be what growing families are looking for (though plenty do live in the SD homes), but perhaps what the PK households would be looking for. The market can sort itself out. I have no concern that they would sell if well designed and with amenities nearby. The real issue is the cost of land. Small homes on small lots (i.e. higher density), is what makes and keeps homes affordable.
I would also like to see “sweat equity” homes where potential homebuyers, likely young individuals/couples, help build their home on the weekends over a course of the year. This greatly reduces the cost of the home. Also motivates them to stay rather than quickly sell for a profit because there is so much personal effort required. This was done recently in North Sacramento and was a huge success.
Neglected to recognize that the original reference to the Stanley-Davis homes was geared toward the County rather than in Davis.
Neglected to recognize that the original reference to the Stanley-Davis homes was geared toward the County rather than in Davis.
Neglected to recognize that the original reference to the Stanley-Davis homes was geared toward the County rather than in Davis.
Neglected to recognize that the original reference to the Stanley-Davis homes was geared toward the County rather than in Davis.
Finally, “cookie cutter” homes are largely perception, unless you’re advocating for custom homes (i.e. unaffordable). Nearly every neighborhood in Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis. What makes any neighborhood appear unique is mature vegetation, which does not materialize with new development for about 10-15 years.
Finally, “cookie cutter” homes are largely perception, unless you’re advocating for custom homes (i.e. unaffordable). Nearly every neighborhood in Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis. What makes any neighborhood appear unique is mature vegetation, which does not materialize with new development for about 10-15 years.
Finally, “cookie cutter” homes are largely perception, unless you’re advocating for custom homes (i.e. unaffordable). Nearly every neighborhood in Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis. What makes any neighborhood appear unique is mature vegetation, which does not materialize with new development for about 10-15 years.
Finally, “cookie cutter” homes are largely perception, unless you’re advocating for custom homes (i.e. unaffordable). Nearly every neighborhood in Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis. What makes any neighborhood appear unique is mature vegetation, which does not materialize with new development for about 10-15 years.
“Nearly every neighborhood in “Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis.”
Yes, those two neighborhoods are prewar, built when carpentry and the other building trades were crafts, not factory jobs worked by semi-skilled laborers wielding nail guns.
“Nearly every neighborhood in “Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis.”
Yes, those two neighborhoods are prewar, built when carpentry and the other building trades were crafts, not factory jobs worked by semi-skilled laborers wielding nail guns.
“Nearly every neighborhood in “Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis.”
Yes, those two neighborhoods are prewar, built when carpentry and the other building trades were crafts, not factory jobs worked by semi-skilled laborers wielding nail guns.
“Nearly every neighborhood in “Davis is a “cookie cutter” neighborhood except for downtown and old north davis.”
Yes, those two neighborhoods are prewar, built when carpentry and the other building trades were crafts, not factory jobs worked by semi-skilled laborers wielding nail guns.
I wasn’t attacking Republicans per se it was just a rhetorical question.
I wasn’t attacking Republicans per se it was just a rhetorical question.
I wasn’t attacking Republicans per se it was just a rhetorical question.
I wasn’t attacking Republicans per se it was just a rhetorical question.
“The idea is that we require owner occupancy of single-family homes.”
That would have a significant, undesirable impact on the rental market.
“The idea is that we require owner occupancy of single-family homes.”
That would have a significant, undesirable impact on the rental market.
“The idea is that we require owner occupancy of single-family homes.”
That would have a significant, undesirable impact on the rental market.
“The idea is that we require owner occupancy of single-family homes.”
That would have a significant, undesirable impact on the rental market.
First, I question your basic assumption that there is a lack of affordable housing in Davis. On the current MLS of over 200 homes right now, about 20% are below $400,000. There are duplexes, quadriplexes, zero-lot-line homes all over the place.
I think this is a problem of perception: there are a LOT of very high priced homes here, and homes in Davis are higher-priced than in nearby communities (though not by all that much, really). But that doesn’t mean there are no lower-priced homes available. The claim that Davis is elitist really doesn’t hold up. The demographics of this town are probably not untypical of a university town.
All of your solutions to this perceived problem create other problems. As recently as a few years ago the rental vacancy rate in Davis was less than 1%. That is unhealthy, and affects people who truly need ‘affordable’ housing. Any policy which tends to reduce the vacancy rate hurts poorer people disproportionately.
Solutions involving resale caps, which is what they have in Aggie Village (and will have in West Village) require some form of discrimination in order to select the people lucky enough to buy homes below the market value. Take a look at the tiered system they will be using for West Village. Also, if you fail to allow people to build equity on the open market there is a risk they won’t care for their properties. Moreover, those homes wouldn’t be ‘affordable’ if it weren’t for the resale cap. Greater density doesn’t automatically translate to lower home prices.
Your concern seems to be a lack of starter or move-up homes. They are here. People who want more home or yard for the money will look in nearby communities, and will trade the expense and hassle of a short commute for the benefit of more room.
I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.
First, I question your basic assumption that there is a lack of affordable housing in Davis. On the current MLS of over 200 homes right now, about 20% are below $400,000. There are duplexes, quadriplexes, zero-lot-line homes all over the place.
I think this is a problem of perception: there are a LOT of very high priced homes here, and homes in Davis are higher-priced than in nearby communities (though not by all that much, really). But that doesn’t mean there are no lower-priced homes available. The claim that Davis is elitist really doesn’t hold up. The demographics of this town are probably not untypical of a university town.
All of your solutions to this perceived problem create other problems. As recently as a few years ago the rental vacancy rate in Davis was less than 1%. That is unhealthy, and affects people who truly need ‘affordable’ housing. Any policy which tends to reduce the vacancy rate hurts poorer people disproportionately.
Solutions involving resale caps, which is what they have in Aggie Village (and will have in West Village) require some form of discrimination in order to select the people lucky enough to buy homes below the market value. Take a look at the tiered system they will be using for West Village. Also, if you fail to allow people to build equity on the open market there is a risk they won’t care for their properties. Moreover, those homes wouldn’t be ‘affordable’ if it weren’t for the resale cap. Greater density doesn’t automatically translate to lower home prices.
Your concern seems to be a lack of starter or move-up homes. They are here. People who want more home or yard for the money will look in nearby communities, and will trade the expense and hassle of a short commute for the benefit of more room.
I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.
First, I question your basic assumption that there is a lack of affordable housing in Davis. On the current MLS of over 200 homes right now, about 20% are below $400,000. There are duplexes, quadriplexes, zero-lot-line homes all over the place.
I think this is a problem of perception: there are a LOT of very high priced homes here, and homes in Davis are higher-priced than in nearby communities (though not by all that much, really). But that doesn’t mean there are no lower-priced homes available. The claim that Davis is elitist really doesn’t hold up. The demographics of this town are probably not untypical of a university town.
All of your solutions to this perceived problem create other problems. As recently as a few years ago the rental vacancy rate in Davis was less than 1%. That is unhealthy, and affects people who truly need ‘affordable’ housing. Any policy which tends to reduce the vacancy rate hurts poorer people disproportionately.
Solutions involving resale caps, which is what they have in Aggie Village (and will have in West Village) require some form of discrimination in order to select the people lucky enough to buy homes below the market value. Take a look at the tiered system they will be using for West Village. Also, if you fail to allow people to build equity on the open market there is a risk they won’t care for their properties. Moreover, those homes wouldn’t be ‘affordable’ if it weren’t for the resale cap. Greater density doesn’t automatically translate to lower home prices.
Your concern seems to be a lack of starter or move-up homes. They are here. People who want more home or yard for the money will look in nearby communities, and will trade the expense and hassle of a short commute for the benefit of more room.
I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.
First, I question your basic assumption that there is a lack of affordable housing in Davis. On the current MLS of over 200 homes right now, about 20% are below $400,000. There are duplexes, quadriplexes, zero-lot-line homes all over the place.
I think this is a problem of perception: there are a LOT of very high priced homes here, and homes in Davis are higher-priced than in nearby communities (though not by all that much, really). But that doesn’t mean there are no lower-priced homes available. The claim that Davis is elitist really doesn’t hold up. The demographics of this town are probably not untypical of a university town.
All of your solutions to this perceived problem create other problems. As recently as a few years ago the rental vacancy rate in Davis was less than 1%. That is unhealthy, and affects people who truly need ‘affordable’ housing. Any policy which tends to reduce the vacancy rate hurts poorer people disproportionately.
Solutions involving resale caps, which is what they have in Aggie Village (and will have in West Village) require some form of discrimination in order to select the people lucky enough to buy homes below the market value. Take a look at the tiered system they will be using for West Village. Also, if you fail to allow people to build equity on the open market there is a risk they won’t care for their properties. Moreover, those homes wouldn’t be ‘affordable’ if it weren’t for the resale cap. Greater density doesn’t automatically translate to lower home prices.
Your concern seems to be a lack of starter or move-up homes. They are here. People who want more home or yard for the money will look in nearby communities, and will trade the expense and hassle of a short commute for the benefit of more room.
I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.
“I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.”
Out of the DHS class of 2007 I wonder what percentage will be able to afford to buy a home in Davis? I bet the percentage is very low – that is a real problem and the pr0blem will get worse.SAH
“I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.”
Out of the DHS class of 2007 I wonder what percentage will be able to afford to buy a home in Davis? I bet the percentage is very low – that is a real problem and the pr0blem will get worse.SAH
“I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.”
Out of the DHS class of 2007 I wonder what percentage will be able to afford to buy a home in Davis? I bet the percentage is very low – that is a real problem and the pr0blem will get worse.SAH
“I think you have a list of solutions here that are in search of a problem.”
Out of the DHS class of 2007 I wonder what percentage will be able to afford to buy a home in Davis? I bet the percentage is very low – that is a real problem and the pr0blem will get worse.SAH
That is true. It is also true that out of my graduating class at La Jolla High School, a very small percentage will be able to buy a home in La Jolla. Probably true in any community in the Bay Area, much of Southern California as well. Can you name any city in California where that is NOT true?
That is true. It is also true that out of my graduating class at La Jolla High School, a very small percentage will be able to buy a home in La Jolla. Probably true in any community in the Bay Area, much of Southern California as well. Can you name any city in California where that is NOT true?
That is true. It is also true that out of my graduating class at La Jolla High School, a very small percentage will be able to buy a home in La Jolla. Probably true in any community in the Bay Area, much of Southern California as well. Can you name any city in California where that is NOT true?
That is true. It is also true that out of my graduating class at La Jolla High School, a very small percentage will be able to buy a home in La Jolla. Probably true in any community in the Bay Area, much of Southern California as well. Can you name any city in California where that is NOT true?
High density is a worthy goal; but, in Davis and elsewhere, high density often means inaccessible. It doesn’t have to be that way. High density housing doesn’t have to be only 2-story homes and townhouses. It can be stacked units (preferably with elavators to the non-ground-level units), high-rise condominium buildings, or other fully accessible alternatives.
High density is a worthy goal; but, in Davis and elsewhere, high density often means inaccessible. It doesn’t have to be that way. High density housing doesn’t have to be only 2-story homes and townhouses. It can be stacked units (preferably with elavators to the non-ground-level units), high-rise condominium buildings, or other fully accessible alternatives.
High density is a worthy goal; but, in Davis and elsewhere, high density often means inaccessible. It doesn’t have to be that way. High density housing doesn’t have to be only 2-story homes and townhouses. It can be stacked units (preferably with elavators to the non-ground-level units), high-rise condominium buildings, or other fully accessible alternatives.
High density is a worthy goal; but, in Davis and elsewhere, high density often means inaccessible. It doesn’t have to be that way. High density housing doesn’t have to be only 2-story homes and townhouses. It can be stacked units (preferably with elavators to the non-ground-level units), high-rise condominium buildings, or other fully accessible alternatives.
I agree the cost of housing is a general problem, but does that mean we do nothing? Does the older generation just ignore the situation? – I guess the we can tell the kids they can go find housing in Iowa. Somehow that does not seem to be the socially responsible thing to do.SAH
I agree the cost of housing is a general problem, but does that mean we do nothing? Does the older generation just ignore the situation? – I guess the we can tell the kids they can go find housing in Iowa. Somehow that does not seem to be the socially responsible thing to do.SAH
I agree the cost of housing is a general problem, but does that mean we do nothing? Does the older generation just ignore the situation? – I guess the we can tell the kids they can go find housing in Iowa. Somehow that does not seem to be the socially responsible thing to do.SAH
I agree the cost of housing is a general problem, but does that mean we do nothing? Does the older generation just ignore the situation? – I guess the we can tell the kids they can go find housing in Iowa. Somehow that does not seem to be the socially responsible thing to do.SAH
exactly, SAH. the main way for most californians to be able to afford a home in CA is to have been born a generation or two ago, or inherit it from your parents. or get yourself into fantastic debt (and the subprime implosion is going to crush those people), or give up on home ownership and just rent in perpetuity.
people like to say that noone deserves to be able to live in davis just because they grew up here or went to town here (how presumptuous of us), but the same is true for the majority of cities in the state of california these days. if we don’t find some way of getting housing – owned or rented – within the means of the wages paid in this state, a lot of affluent retirees are going to have a hard time finding anyone to work the service jobs to support them.
as for our fair city, we lose something important as a (formerly) college town community when students cannot afford to stay in town, and when people who grow up here have to move away. i totally agree that making big luxury mcmansion developments won’t accomplish that, but neither will refusing to build new housing to accomodate internal demand.
personally, i think the solution is in building a lot more high-density mixed-use rental units downtown in place of the ugly concrete shoebox retail buildings (as a concession to the reality that even affordable housing is going to be out of a lot of people’s range, even after the bubble bursts), and building new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.
post-kid houses are part of the solution, but there ought to be some effort put to help out people younger than retirees. making it possible for young families to live here would help with the school enrollment problem as well.
oh, and then repealing prop. 13 so that people aren’t strongly dissuaded from ever moving in-state for fear of higher property taxes, and to make life a bit easier with the people who bought houses after 1978 who are currently shouldering the burden of the shortfall that those pre-78ers’ lower taxes created. that short-sighted initiative has messed a lot of things up in this state over the past several decades, from funding local government and education to sprawling development.
exactly, SAH. the main way for most californians to be able to afford a home in CA is to have been born a generation or two ago, or inherit it from your parents. or get yourself into fantastic debt (and the subprime implosion is going to crush those people), or give up on home ownership and just rent in perpetuity.
people like to say that noone deserves to be able to live in davis just because they grew up here or went to town here (how presumptuous of us), but the same is true for the majority of cities in the state of california these days. if we don’t find some way of getting housing – owned or rented – within the means of the wages paid in this state, a lot of affluent retirees are going to have a hard time finding anyone to work the service jobs to support them.
as for our fair city, we lose something important as a (formerly) college town community when students cannot afford to stay in town, and when people who grow up here have to move away. i totally agree that making big luxury mcmansion developments won’t accomplish that, but neither will refusing to build new housing to accomodate internal demand.
personally, i think the solution is in building a lot more high-density mixed-use rental units downtown in place of the ugly concrete shoebox retail buildings (as a concession to the reality that even affordable housing is going to be out of a lot of people’s range, even after the bubble bursts), and building new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.
post-kid houses are part of the solution, but there ought to be some effort put to help out people younger than retirees. making it possible for young families to live here would help with the school enrollment problem as well.
oh, and then repealing prop. 13 so that people aren’t strongly dissuaded from ever moving in-state for fear of higher property taxes, and to make life a bit easier with the people who bought houses after 1978 who are currently shouldering the burden of the shortfall that those pre-78ers’ lower taxes created. that short-sighted initiative has messed a lot of things up in this state over the past several decades, from funding local government and education to sprawling development.
exactly, SAH. the main way for most californians to be able to afford a home in CA is to have been born a generation or two ago, or inherit it from your parents. or get yourself into fantastic debt (and the subprime implosion is going to crush those people), or give up on home ownership and just rent in perpetuity.
people like to say that noone deserves to be able to live in davis just because they grew up here or went to town here (how presumptuous of us), but the same is true for the majority of cities in the state of california these days. if we don’t find some way of getting housing – owned or rented – within the means of the wages paid in this state, a lot of affluent retirees are going to have a hard time finding anyone to work the service jobs to support them.
as for our fair city, we lose something important as a (formerly) college town community when students cannot afford to stay in town, and when people who grow up here have to move away. i totally agree that making big luxury mcmansion developments won’t accomplish that, but neither will refusing to build new housing to accomodate internal demand.
personally, i think the solution is in building a lot more high-density mixed-use rental units downtown in place of the ugly concrete shoebox retail buildings (as a concession to the reality that even affordable housing is going to be out of a lot of people’s range, even after the bubble bursts), and building new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.
post-kid houses are part of the solution, but there ought to be some effort put to help out people younger than retirees. making it possible for young families to live here would help with the school enrollment problem as well.
oh, and then repealing prop. 13 so that people aren’t strongly dissuaded from ever moving in-state for fear of higher property taxes, and to make life a bit easier with the people who bought houses after 1978 who are currently shouldering the burden of the shortfall that those pre-78ers’ lower taxes created. that short-sighted initiative has messed a lot of things up in this state over the past several decades, from funding local government and education to sprawling development.
exactly, SAH. the main way for most californians to be able to afford a home in CA is to have been born a generation or two ago, or inherit it from your parents. or get yourself into fantastic debt (and the subprime implosion is going to crush those people), or give up on home ownership and just rent in perpetuity.
people like to say that noone deserves to be able to live in davis just because they grew up here or went to town here (how presumptuous of us), but the same is true for the majority of cities in the state of california these days. if we don’t find some way of getting housing – owned or rented – within the means of the wages paid in this state, a lot of affluent retirees are going to have a hard time finding anyone to work the service jobs to support them.
as for our fair city, we lose something important as a (formerly) college town community when students cannot afford to stay in town, and when people who grow up here have to move away. i totally agree that making big luxury mcmansion developments won’t accomplish that, but neither will refusing to build new housing to accomodate internal demand.
personally, i think the solution is in building a lot more high-density mixed-use rental units downtown in place of the ugly concrete shoebox retail buildings (as a concession to the reality that even affordable housing is going to be out of a lot of people’s range, even after the bubble bursts), and building new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.
post-kid houses are part of the solution, but there ought to be some effort put to help out people younger than retirees. making it possible for young families to live here would help with the school enrollment problem as well.
oh, and then repealing prop. 13 so that people aren’t strongly dissuaded from ever moving in-state for fear of higher property taxes, and to make life a bit easier with the people who bought houses after 1978 who are currently shouldering the burden of the shortfall that those pre-78ers’ lower taxes created. that short-sighted initiative has messed a lot of things up in this state over the past several decades, from funding local government and education to sprawling development.
. . the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre . .
In Davis Manor density is actually closer to 9 (5k sq ft), but point taken and agreed, density needs to be increased.
. . the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre . .
In Davis Manor density is actually closer to 9 (5k sq ft), but point taken and agreed, density needs to be increased.
. . the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre . .
In Davis Manor density is actually closer to 9 (5k sq ft), but point taken and agreed, density needs to be increased.
. . the Stanley Davis homes calculate out to approximately 5 units an acre . .
In Davis Manor density is actually closer to 9 (5k sq ft), but point taken and agreed, density needs to be increased.
Wu Ming wrote:
“…build new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. Build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.”
Well, “new urbanist” carries a lot of baggage, as far as its manifestion could have been in Covell Village…
But if you want to check out how an existing, sane “new urbanist” development works, take a walk through Aggie Village (a calm residential oasis just west of the Borders strip mall). It includes Human-sized
and oriented homes, a fair facsimile of Old North Davis neighborhoods, in built fact. An interesting, attractive mix of building styles including the gradual transition of generous porches with the accompanying casualness of the public spaces encouraging neighborliness.
From the burdened clotheslines, unique vegetation and casual “lived-in” appearances in the yards, this development bespeakes “quality of life” (without the invisible hand of the “master-planner” or a homeowners’ association interfering too obviously) that was taken for granted a couple of generations ago, before “master-planning” became all the rage.
Aggie Village quietly works on a human scale, even though it is situated only a block
from the busiest part of downtown Davis…
–Brian Orr
Wu Ming wrote:
“…build new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. Build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.”
Well, “new urbanist” carries a lot of baggage, as far as its manifestion could have been in Covell Village…
But if you want to check out how an existing, sane “new urbanist” development works, take a walk through Aggie Village (a calm residential oasis just west of the Borders strip mall). It includes Human-sized
and oriented homes, a fair facsimile of Old North Davis neighborhoods, in built fact. An interesting, attractive mix of building styles including the gradual transition of generous porches with the accompanying casualness of the public spaces encouraging neighborliness.
From the burdened clotheslines, unique vegetation and casual “lived-in” appearances in the yards, this development bespeakes “quality of life” (without the invisible hand of the “master-planner” or a homeowners’ association interfering too obviously) that was taken for granted a couple of generations ago, before “master-planning” became all the rage.
Aggie Village quietly works on a human scale, even though it is situated only a block
from the busiest part of downtown Davis…
–Brian Orr
Wu Ming wrote:
“…build new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. Build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.”
Well, “new urbanist” carries a lot of baggage, as far as its manifestion could have been in Covell Village…
But if you want to check out how an existing, sane “new urbanist” development works, take a walk through Aggie Village (a calm residential oasis just west of the Borders strip mall). It includes Human-sized
and oriented homes, a fair facsimile of Old North Davis neighborhoods, in built fact. An interesting, attractive mix of building styles including the gradual transition of generous porches with the accompanying casualness of the public spaces encouraging neighborliness.
From the burdened clotheslines, unique vegetation and casual “lived-in” appearances in the yards, this development bespeakes “quality of life” (without the invisible hand of the “master-planner” or a homeowners’ association interfering too obviously) that was taken for granted a couple of generations ago, before “master-planning” became all the rage.
Aggie Village quietly works on a human scale, even though it is situated only a block
from the busiest part of downtown Davis…
–Brian Orr
Wu Ming wrote:
“…build new urbanist-style dense townhouses or small houses on small lots in all subsequent development. Build up, and don’t build the sorts of houses that the equity-rich yuppies like.”
Well, “new urbanist” carries a lot of baggage, as far as its manifestion could have been in Covell Village…
But if you want to check out how an existing, sane “new urbanist” development works, take a walk through Aggie Village (a calm residential oasis just west of the Borders strip mall). It includes Human-sized
and oriented homes, a fair facsimile of Old North Davis neighborhoods, in built fact. An interesting, attractive mix of building styles including the gradual transition of generous porches with the accompanying casualness of the public spaces encouraging neighborliness.
From the burdened clotheslines, unique vegetation and casual “lived-in” appearances in the yards, this development bespeakes “quality of life” (without the invisible hand of the “master-planner” or a homeowners’ association interfering too obviously) that was taken for granted a couple of generations ago, before “master-planning” became all the rage.
Aggie Village quietly works on a human scale, even though it is situated only a block
from the busiest part of downtown Davis…
–Brian Orr
SAH, you have taken the time to type your pseudonym at the end of your posts. Rather than clicking on Anonymous and doing that, you may want to click on Other and type SAH in the UserName box. Just a suggestion.
With that said, I concur with don shor’s comments both on the rental market and the prices of houses throughout California.
When my wife and I came to Davis in 1998 we looked first at single-family home rentals. 1) there weren’t more than 5 available anywhere in the City, 2) the 5 that were available were in such bad shape that we could see ourselves getting depressed every time the thought of going home popped into our heads. So we ended up buying a house instead. One of the best decisions we’ve made over our years together. We also had occasion earlier that year to be looking in Half Moon bay and several other Bay Area communities. The cost of Davis housing was cheap by comparison.
IMHO, the real challenge is adjusting our expectations to match reality. I believe, the problem is less the inventory of available houses in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range, but rather the individual buyer’s personal willingness to live in one of the homes that is availablem in that price range.
SAH, you have taken the time to type your pseudonym at the end of your posts. Rather than clicking on Anonymous and doing that, you may want to click on Other and type SAH in the UserName box. Just a suggestion.
With that said, I concur with don shor’s comments both on the rental market and the prices of houses throughout California.
When my wife and I came to Davis in 1998 we looked first at single-family home rentals. 1) there weren’t more than 5 available anywhere in the City, 2) the 5 that were available were in such bad shape that we could see ourselves getting depressed every time the thought of going home popped into our heads. So we ended up buying a house instead. One of the best decisions we’ve made over our years together. We also had occasion earlier that year to be looking in Half Moon bay and several other Bay Area communities. The cost of Davis housing was cheap by comparison.
IMHO, the real challenge is adjusting our expectations to match reality. I believe, the problem is less the inventory of available houses in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range, but rather the individual buyer’s personal willingness to live in one of the homes that is availablem in that price range.
SAH, you have taken the time to type your pseudonym at the end of your posts. Rather than clicking on Anonymous and doing that, you may want to click on Other and type SAH in the UserName box. Just a suggestion.
With that said, I concur with don shor’s comments both on the rental market and the prices of houses throughout California.
When my wife and I came to Davis in 1998 we looked first at single-family home rentals. 1) there weren’t more than 5 available anywhere in the City, 2) the 5 that were available were in such bad shape that we could see ourselves getting depressed every time the thought of going home popped into our heads. So we ended up buying a house instead. One of the best decisions we’ve made over our years together. We also had occasion earlier that year to be looking in Half Moon bay and several other Bay Area communities. The cost of Davis housing was cheap by comparison.
IMHO, the real challenge is adjusting our expectations to match reality. I believe, the problem is less the inventory of available houses in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range, but rather the individual buyer’s personal willingness to live in one of the homes that is availablem in that price range.
SAH, you have taken the time to type your pseudonym at the end of your posts. Rather than clicking on Anonymous and doing that, you may want to click on Other and type SAH in the UserName box. Just a suggestion.
With that said, I concur with don shor’s comments both on the rental market and the prices of houses throughout California.
When my wife and I came to Davis in 1998 we looked first at single-family home rentals. 1) there weren’t more than 5 available anywhere in the City, 2) the 5 that were available were in such bad shape that we could see ourselves getting depressed every time the thought of going home popped into our heads. So we ended up buying a house instead. One of the best decisions we’ve made over our years together. We also had occasion earlier that year to be looking in Half Moon bay and several other Bay Area communities. The cost of Davis housing was cheap by comparison.
IMHO, the real challenge is adjusting our expectations to match reality. I believe, the problem is less the inventory of available houses in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range, but rather the individual buyer’s personal willingness to live in one of the homes that is availablem in that price range.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff. These innovative designs like Aggie Village (and Village Homes) don’t provide affordable housing. The only thing making Aggie Village affordable is a cap on the resale price. That has created a long waiting list of people who want to buy them, even with the pool restricted to current UCD faculty and staff.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff. These innovative designs like Aggie Village (and Village Homes) don’t provide affordable housing. The only thing making Aggie Village affordable is a cap on the resale price. That has created a long waiting list of people who want to buy them, even with the pool restricted to current UCD faculty and staff.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff. These innovative designs like Aggie Village (and Village Homes) don’t provide affordable housing. The only thing making Aggie Village affordable is a cap on the resale price. That has created a long waiting list of people who want to buy them, even with the pool restricted to current UCD faculty and staff.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff. These innovative designs like Aggie Village (and Village Homes) don’t provide affordable housing. The only thing making Aggie Village affordable is a cap on the resale price. That has created a long waiting list of people who want to buy them, even with the pool restricted to current UCD faculty and staff.
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Don Shor wrote:
“Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff.”
Sounds like a good financing scheme for the upcoming homes
in UCD’s “West Village.”
A huge development creating vast traffic/pollution problems…not to mention it is going to be built on, literally, some of the most fertile soil in the world…
(did you know the UC Regents utilized eminent domain to take possession of the “West Village” land from the Campbell family back in 1951, citing its extreme fertility as being a boon to attract cutting-edge ag researchers, back then, to UCD?)
As far as the planning thereof, “West Village” that is, Aggie Village’s layout would, if utilized in the “West Village” building scheme, make for a much smaller “footprint” than the 1950’s style, ranch-home-with a half-acre yard plan for using up as much land as possible UCD is contemplating for “West Village”…
–Brian Orr
Don Shor wrote:
“Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff.”
Sounds like a good financing scheme for the upcoming homes
in UCD’s “West Village.”
A huge development creating vast traffic/pollution problems…not to mention it is going to be built on, literally, some of the most fertile soil in the world…
(did you know the UC Regents utilized eminent domain to take possession of the “West Village” land from the Campbell family back in 1951, citing its extreme fertility as being a boon to attract cutting-edge ag researchers, back then, to UCD?)
As far as the planning thereof, “West Village” that is, Aggie Village’s layout would, if utilized in the “West Village” building scheme, make for a much smaller “footprint” than the 1950’s style, ranch-home-with a half-acre yard plan for using up as much land as possible UCD is contemplating for “West Village”…
–Brian Orr
Don Shor wrote:
“Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff.”
Sounds like a good financing scheme for the upcoming homes
in UCD’s “West Village.”
A huge development creating vast traffic/pollution problems…not to mention it is going to be built on, literally, some of the most fertile soil in the world…
(did you know the UC Regents utilized eminent domain to take possession of the “West Village” land from the Campbell family back in 1951, citing its extreme fertility as being a boon to attract cutting-edge ag researchers, back then, to UCD?)
As far as the planning thereof, “West Village” that is, Aggie Village’s layout would, if utilized in the “West Village” building scheme, make for a much smaller “footprint” than the 1950’s style, ranch-home-with a half-acre yard plan for using up as much land as possible UCD is contemplating for “West Village”…
–Brian Orr
Don Shor wrote:
“Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market. You can only buy there if you are UCD faculty or staff.”
Sounds like a good financing scheme for the upcoming homes
in UCD’s “West Village.”
A huge development creating vast traffic/pollution problems…not to mention it is going to be built on, literally, some of the most fertile soil in the world…
(did you know the UC Regents utilized eminent domain to take possession of the “West Village” land from the Campbell family back in 1951, citing its extreme fertility as being a boon to attract cutting-edge ag researchers, back then, to UCD?)
As far as the planning thereof, “West Village” that is, Aggie Village’s layout would, if utilized in the “West Village” building scheme, make for a much smaller “footprint” than the 1950’s style, ranch-home-with a half-acre yard plan for using up as much land as possible UCD is contemplating for “West Village”…
–Brian Orr
“The proposal describes what faculty and staff are eligible for each priority pool, and specifies how many homes are to be available to each pool.
* Aggie Pool — Ladder-rank faculty members who have been recently recruited, and staff members who have been recently recruited through national searches. The Aggie Pool also would include employees who already own homes in Aggie Village — to give these homeowners a chance to move to West Village. Number of homes: 145 (50 percent of the total).
* Mustang Pool — All other faculty, members of the Academic Federation, and all other staff. Number of homes: 80 (28 percent).
* Blue and Gold Pool — The same criteria as the Mustang Pool, but with financial conditions attached, so that the Blue and Gold homes — the lowest priced in West Village — would be reserved for qualified people with the lowest incomes. Number of homes: 65 (22 percent).”
“The proposal describes what faculty and staff are eligible for each priority pool, and specifies how many homes are to be available to each pool.
* Aggie Pool — Ladder-rank faculty members who have been recently recruited, and staff members who have been recently recruited through national searches. The Aggie Pool also would include employees who already own homes in Aggie Village — to give these homeowners a chance to move to West Village. Number of homes: 145 (50 percent of the total).
* Mustang Pool — All other faculty, members of the Academic Federation, and all other staff. Number of homes: 80 (28 percent).
* Blue and Gold Pool — The same criteria as the Mustang Pool, but with financial conditions attached, so that the Blue and Gold homes — the lowest priced in West Village — would be reserved for qualified people with the lowest incomes. Number of homes: 65 (22 percent).”
“The proposal describes what faculty and staff are eligible for each priority pool, and specifies how many homes are to be available to each pool.
* Aggie Pool — Ladder-rank faculty members who have been recently recruited, and staff members who have been recently recruited through national searches. The Aggie Pool also would include employees who already own homes in Aggie Village — to give these homeowners a chance to move to West Village. Number of homes: 145 (50 percent of the total).
* Mustang Pool — All other faculty, members of the Academic Federation, and all other staff. Number of homes: 80 (28 percent).
* Blue and Gold Pool — The same criteria as the Mustang Pool, but with financial conditions attached, so that the Blue and Gold homes — the lowest priced in West Village — would be reserved for qualified people with the lowest incomes. Number of homes: 65 (22 percent).”
“The proposal describes what faculty and staff are eligible for each priority pool, and specifies how many homes are to be available to each pool.
* Aggie Pool — Ladder-rank faculty members who have been recently recruited, and staff members who have been recently recruited through national searches. The Aggie Pool also would include employees who already own homes in Aggie Village — to give these homeowners a chance to move to West Village. Number of homes: 145 (50 percent of the total).
* Mustang Pool — All other faculty, members of the Academic Federation, and all other staff. Number of homes: 80 (28 percent).
* Blue and Gold Pool — The same criteria as the Mustang Pool, but with financial conditions attached, so that the Blue and Gold homes — the lowest priced in West Village — would be reserved for qualified people with the lowest incomes. Number of homes: 65 (22 percent).”
Sorry — the above quote describes how buyers will be selected for West Village.
Sorry — the above quote describes how buyers will be selected for West Village.
Sorry — the above quote describes how buyers will be selected for West Village.
Sorry — the above quote describes how buyers will be selected for West Village.
and that is in addition to a significant #of rental apartments clustered around the bus depot/commercial center/green. it should loosen up the rental market significantly, if it keeps up with the rate of student body growth.
and that is in addition to a significant #of rental apartments clustered around the bus depot/commercial center/green. it should loosen up the rental market significantly, if it keeps up with the rate of student body growth.
and that is in addition to a significant #of rental apartments clustered around the bus depot/commercial center/green. it should loosen up the rental market significantly, if it keeps up with the rate of student body growth.
and that is in addition to a significant #of rental apartments clustered around the bus depot/commercial center/green. it should loosen up the rental market significantly, if it keeps up with the rate of student body growth.
Anonymous said…
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Whether it is his actual name, his initials or a pseudonym is inconsequential to the point I was making. By not using the Anonymous radio ball, his posts would start with SAH said … rather than Anonymous said … as well as eliminate the chance that he could accidentally make a post with the SAH omitted at the end.
Anonymous said…
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Whether it is his actual name, his initials or a pseudonym is inconsequential to the point I was making. By not using the Anonymous radio ball, his posts would start with SAH said … rather than Anonymous said … as well as eliminate the chance that he could accidentally make a post with the SAH omitted at the end.
Anonymous said…
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Whether it is his actual name, his initials or a pseudonym is inconsequential to the point I was making. By not using the Anonymous radio ball, his posts would start with SAH said … rather than Anonymous said … as well as eliminate the chance that he could accidentally make a post with the SAH omitted at the end.
Anonymous said…
Matt: I think that’s his actual name.
Whether it is his actual name, his initials or a pseudonym is inconsequential to the point I was making. By not using the Anonymous radio ball, his posts would start with SAH said … rather than Anonymous said … as well as eliminate the chance that he could accidentally make a post with the SAH omitted at the end.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market.
I disagree, considering an entry-level SD house with a large yard in east Davis goes for that or less. Higher density townhomes, rowhouses, lofts, live-work units, etc. are all housing types that would be much more affordable because much of the cost of homeownership here is the cost of land on which the house sits. They wouldn’t be pre-2000 affordable, but they would be within reach of a wider range of incomes. Many of these types have a “coolness” factor for younger folks/couples that single family homes don’t have. Considering they are generally consistent with smart growth principles and compact development, these are what we should be advocating for.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market.
I disagree, considering an entry-level SD house with a large yard in east Davis goes for that or less. Higher density townhomes, rowhouses, lofts, live-work units, etc. are all housing types that would be much more affordable because much of the cost of homeownership here is the cost of land on which the house sits. They wouldn’t be pre-2000 affordable, but they would be within reach of a wider range of incomes. Many of these types have a “coolness” factor for younger folks/couples that single family homes don’t have. Considering they are generally consistent with smart growth principles and compact development, these are what we should be advocating for.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market.
I disagree, considering an entry-level SD house with a large yard in east Davis goes for that or less. Higher density townhomes, rowhouses, lofts, live-work units, etc. are all housing types that would be much more affordable because much of the cost of homeownership here is the cost of land on which the house sits. They wouldn’t be pre-2000 affordable, but they would be within reach of a wider range of incomes. Many of these types have a “coolness” factor for younger folks/couples that single family homes don’t have. Considering they are generally consistent with smart growth principles and compact development, these are what we should be advocating for.
Homes in Aggie Village would probably sell for over $500K if they were on the real market.
I disagree, considering an entry-level SD house with a large yard in east Davis goes for that or less. Higher density townhomes, rowhouses, lofts, live-work units, etc. are all housing types that would be much more affordable because much of the cost of homeownership here is the cost of land on which the house sits. They wouldn’t be pre-2000 affordable, but they would be within reach of a wider range of incomes. Many of these types have a “coolness” factor for younger folks/couples that single family homes don’t have. Considering they are generally consistent with smart growth principles and compact development, these are what we should be advocating for.
This discussion is extremely informative as there appear to be many very knowledgable Vanguard posters on this subject. A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?
This discussion is extremely informative as there appear to be many very knowledgable Vanguard posters on this subject. A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?
This discussion is extremely informative as there appear to be many very knowledgable Vanguard posters on this subject. A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?
This discussion is extremely informative as there appear to be many very knowledgable Vanguard posters on this subject. A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?
“A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?”
I reply:
The biggest footprint is the most profitable for the developers, but I think Aggie Village is an example of a development which didn’t accentuate, thankfully, as top priority, profitability…rather it was built with livability as the top priority…seems to me that such prioritization, building with a smaller footprint, could work elsewhere in town if money weren’t blindly accepted as being the top
priority…
Why is it not rational to ask the developers to factor in a slightly smaller profit into their land-wasting outmoded half-acre ranch home concepts (in an urban setting) and build human-scale projects like Aggie Village as infill all over town?
–Brian Orr
PS: And not destroy in favor of out-of-proportion de-hunanized prefab high-rises like the narcissistic (as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed) plan for B Street downtown? That sort of de-humanizing “architecture” is not encouraging a “blending of university and city,” as architect Orgydolziak, or whatever her name is, asserts, rather it just means bulldozing down a real neighborhood…Hell, if she ever came out of her purple monstrosity of a fortress (blinds always drawn down day and night) and walked around her own neighborhood there and actually watched and talked to folk thereabouts she’d realize
those threatened bungalows already fit in, as they have for decades, with the “liveable” landscape already in place…
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
“A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?”
I reply:
The biggest footprint is the most profitable for the developers, but I think Aggie Village is an example of a development which didn’t accentuate, thankfully, as top priority, profitability…rather it was built with livability as the top priority…seems to me that such prioritization, building with a smaller footprint, could work elsewhere in town if money weren’t blindly accepted as being the top
priority…
Why is it not rational to ask the developers to factor in a slightly smaller profit into their land-wasting outmoded half-acre ranch home concepts (in an urban setting) and build human-scale projects like Aggie Village as infill all over town?
–Brian Orr
PS: And not destroy in favor of out-of-proportion de-hunanized prefab high-rises like the narcissistic (as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed) plan for B Street downtown? That sort of de-humanizing “architecture” is not encouraging a “blending of university and city,” as architect Orgydolziak, or whatever her name is, asserts, rather it just means bulldozing down a real neighborhood…Hell, if she ever came out of her purple monstrosity of a fortress (blinds always drawn down day and night) and walked around her own neighborhood there and actually watched and talked to folk thereabouts she’d realize
those threatened bungalows already fit in, as they have for decades, with the “liveable” landscape already in place…
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
“A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?”
I reply:
The biggest footprint is the most profitable for the developers, but I think Aggie Village is an example of a development which didn’t accentuate, thankfully, as top priority, profitability…rather it was built with livability as the top priority…seems to me that such prioritization, building with a smaller footprint, could work elsewhere in town if money weren’t blindly accepted as being the top
priority…
Why is it not rational to ask the developers to factor in a slightly smaller profit into their land-wasting outmoded half-acre ranch home concepts (in an urban setting) and build human-scale projects like Aggie Village as infill all over town?
–Brian Orr
PS: And not destroy in favor of out-of-proportion de-hunanized prefab high-rises like the narcissistic (as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed) plan for B Street downtown? That sort of de-humanizing “architecture” is not encouraging a “blending of university and city,” as architect Orgydolziak, or whatever her name is, asserts, rather it just means bulldozing down a real neighborhood…Hell, if she ever came out of her purple monstrosity of a fortress (blinds always drawn down day and night) and walked around her own neighborhood there and actually watched and talked to folk thereabouts she’d realize
those threatened bungalows already fit in, as they have for decades, with the “liveable” landscape already in place…
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
“A narrative is promoted by the developers and speculators(and those whom they underwrite on our Council) that we need to build large, sprawling developements on Davis’ periphery. Is it a coincidence that the largest profit margin lies in building the largest, most expensive homes?”
I reply:
The biggest footprint is the most profitable for the developers, but I think Aggie Village is an example of a development which didn’t accentuate, thankfully, as top priority, profitability…rather it was built with livability as the top priority…seems to me that such prioritization, building with a smaller footprint, could work elsewhere in town if money weren’t blindly accepted as being the top
priority…
Why is it not rational to ask the developers to factor in a slightly smaller profit into their land-wasting outmoded half-acre ranch home concepts (in an urban setting) and build human-scale projects like Aggie Village as infill all over town?
–Brian Orr
PS: And not destroy in favor of out-of-proportion de-hunanized prefab high-rises like the narcissistic (as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed) plan for B Street downtown? That sort of de-humanizing “architecture” is not encouraging a “blending of university and city,” as architect Orgydolziak, or whatever her name is, asserts, rather it just means bulldozing down a real neighborhood…Hell, if she ever came out of her purple monstrosity of a fortress (blinds always drawn down day and night) and walked around her own neighborhood there and actually watched and talked to folk thereabouts she’d realize
those threatened bungalows already fit in, as they have for decades, with the “liveable” landscape already in place…
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
(as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed)
Sorry, meant, of course, “human interaction allowed”
–Brian Orr
(as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed)
Sorry, meant, of course, “human interaction allowed”
–Brian Orr
(as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed)
Sorry, meant, of course, “human interaction allowed”
–Brian Orr
(as in denial of any concept of a lively public space, wherein neighborly narrative might possibly take place, i.e., no human interaction allowed)
Sorry, meant, of course, “human interaction allowed”
–Brian Orr
Cottage Industry
There is no amount of new construction that can create “affordable housing” for Davis in a free market. Davis is a desireable community and people will come from all over the region to live here as long as the premium to live here isn’t too much over the market.
I think that the real oportunity in Davis is to increase our density by actively promoting the construction of cottages on existing lots in town.
An active campaign from the city simplifying the maddening permit process and promoting the construction of cottages could dramatically increase the available housing stock. The cost of actual construction is minimal compared to developing a new lot for a small home.
Cottage Industry
There is no amount of new construction that can create “affordable housing” for Davis in a free market. Davis is a desireable community and people will come from all over the region to live here as long as the premium to live here isn’t too much over the market.
I think that the real oportunity in Davis is to increase our density by actively promoting the construction of cottages on existing lots in town.
An active campaign from the city simplifying the maddening permit process and promoting the construction of cottages could dramatically increase the available housing stock. The cost of actual construction is minimal compared to developing a new lot for a small home.
Cottage Industry
There is no amount of new construction that can create “affordable housing” for Davis in a free market. Davis is a desireable community and people will come from all over the region to live here as long as the premium to live here isn’t too much over the market.
I think that the real oportunity in Davis is to increase our density by actively promoting the construction of cottages on existing lots in town.
An active campaign from the city simplifying the maddening permit process and promoting the construction of cottages could dramatically increase the available housing stock. The cost of actual construction is minimal compared to developing a new lot for a small home.
Cottage Industry
There is no amount of new construction that can create “affordable housing” for Davis in a free market. Davis is a desireable community and people will come from all over the region to live here as long as the premium to live here isn’t too much over the market.
I think that the real oportunity in Davis is to increase our density by actively promoting the construction of cottages on existing lots in town.
An active campaign from the city simplifying the maddening permit process and promoting the construction of cottages could dramatically increase the available housing stock. The cost of actual construction is minimal compared to developing a new lot for a small home.