As part of the city’s efforts at developing a Core Area Specific Plan, the city has a survey (see here: http://www.cityofdavis.org/EnvisionDowntownDavis). The public is encouraged to take the survey.
Some of the questions they ask evoke some thoughts from me.
For instance: “Should the plan propose medium/large scale in the heart of downtown, and transition to smaller scale on the edges, as displayed in the diagram below?”
They add: “In the heart of downtown, about how tall should the buildings be?”
They give you choices, from 1-2 stories all the way up to 9-10 stories.
That part seems good, but then they ask: “How strongly do you agree with the vision statements describing the intended future character for each of the following neighborhood types (sub-districts)?”
They then describe six different districts. For example:
“University Avenue District: A walkable, primarily residential environment with a mix of single-family and multi unit house-scale buildings, generally 1 to 2.5 stories. Includes some small-scale neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses.”
Another:
“Heart of Downtown: A walkable, vertical mixed-use environment with neighborhood – and regional- serving retail and commercial on the ground floor, and offices or residential uses on the upper floors. Buildings are generally block-scale and 2 to 8 stories in height.”
This is the map they are envisioning:
Off the top of my head, I have a basic idea of what I would like to see the downtown look like. In fact, the first two questions are excellent. I believe the core of downtown should be about 5 to 6 stories tall. I actually have a pretty specific vision for downtown – I’d like to see mixed-use blocks where you have retail at the bottom, office space in the middle, and residential on top with parking embedded internally within each block.
I have a basic layout for downtown in mind, but I don’t know if I support a “transitional horizontal mixed-use environment with a mix of single-family, house-scale buildings and some retail buildings, generally 1 to 2.5 stories” in the North G Street district until I see how it fits in with the overall plan.
Clearly, there does need to be a transition from the dense core to the less dense neighborhoods. Part of the problem at this time is that we are designing the downtown with 2018 in our minds, while the rest of the downtown was not built in 2018, but at least half a century before. So unless we want to knock down the older historical neighborhood, which I would argue is an exceedingly bad idea, we are stuck with the idea of a dense, modern core surrounded by low density neighborhoods that are quite old.
The survey then transitions back to where I see us going as a downtown. They write: “To create a vibrant downtown and boost its economy, a key idea is to increase the mix of uses: increase housing as well as introduce more office, retail and other new uses that are appropriate for Davis.”
Here I think I can be a bit more helpful.
The survey asks the types of activities and facilities needed in the downtown public spaces, here are my answers…
Here I say we need more rental housing, and a little more housing that is for sale. I think in my mind I prefer rental downtown rather than ownership condos, but that’s just me. And then of course we need more professional offices, something that is lacking in downtown, and more retail.
I’m supportive of the innovation hub and shared work space concept. I had an office in one for awhile and believe that is something we desperately need. Love to see what one would look like if the entire building were so designed for it.
They then ask about public spaces – I’m okay with public space, if we are going to do something with that space. I’m indifferent as to whether we need one large one, some small ones or one large and several small ones. That’s too much detail for me. I put one large one, but my preference isn’t strong there.
They ask what I want in this public space, and that I don’t really care about. This is the problem – I could see a number of uses for a public space. They list a lot: play structures for kids, climbing structures, benches and seating areas, public art, weekly and monthly events, programmed events, outdoor eateries and restaurants.
I could agree to any depending on the theme. I ended up picking benches, public art, and outdoor eateries. But I could easily see a small farmer’s market, a children’s area or gym, and concerts depending on the set up.
Here again, I don’t really care, but the questions are actually limiting the possibilities.
They are WAY too concerned about this public space and not concerned enough about what I really care about – what the downtown development itself looks like. They ask: “What is your preference for the character of the proposed public spaces in Downtown Davis?”
I get to choose between more green, less paved and more paved, less green. To which I again say, I don’t know. I put the slider in the middle, but all three examples look fine to me.
They ask: “Should the Downtown Davis Plan use “Carbon Free Davis by 2050” as a foundational element to the planning process?” Sure – why not. Why have guidelines if we don’t intend to use them?
They ask – and I’m sure this will set my readers off – how I get to downtown. Sorry folks: these days I’m driving alone or carpooling (usually that means schlepping the kids with me). But I can’t pick more than one option and the thing is, once I arrive downtown, I don’t move the car, I walk the rest of the time.
What Gateway do I use? Normally I probably irritate Old East Davis, because I cut down 5th Street, turn left onto K Street and cut down 4th Street to get to my office. I don’t get that option in the survey, so I chose 7 – 5th Street at G Street.
The key thing is that I long ago decided to avoid the Richards Tunnel. I drop the kids off at Montgomery, but it takes too long during the year to go down Cowell and Richards to downtown, so instead I stay on Pole Line and head down 5th Street. It’s slightly further in distance but, during peak times, it is markedly faster and less irritating.
They then ask about street design and really I haven’t a clue or preference here. “Today, the majority of Downtown street right-of-way is allocated towards travel lanes and on-street parking for vehicles. The proposed approach is to reallocate limited street right-of-way and prioritize travel modes on targeted street segments or corridors in order to improve the comfort and functionality of the overall Downtown transportation system.
“There are several different priorities that can be considered for key corridors in Downtown Davis. These priorities include improvements and facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and transit.”
They then ask something I find more interesting: “What should the priority be for the curb space in Downtown Davis? Drag the considerations to rank in order of priority.”
This is all going to really depend – my preference is to have parking on the periphery of downtown, like by Design House or another location, and then have people walk, use a trolley, bike, or bus into the downtown areas. If that’s the case, then we don’t need parking for vehicles.
But until we get the parking, it’s hard to do much else. I’m also irritated that we have never really figured out how to allow for good loading without blocking vehicle traffic. Fortunately, we have restricted some of the hours, but it remains a problem.
Then we get to parking.
The first question is easy: “More than 2,000 cars are parked in Downtown Davis at the peak hour, but there are only 1,159 on-street spaces, so it’s impossible for everyone to park on the street.
Who should have priority for on-street parking?”
Short-term parking for customers obviously has to take priority over long-term parking for employees.
But then I get irritated by the limitations of the question: “What should be the highest priority for investing public resources (i.e., tax and fee revenues) in improving access to downtown?”
My options: “Expand and improve public transportation, vanpool and carpool programs, and make it safer and easier to walk and bike to and within downtown” or “Add more automobile parking, together with any new roadway capacity needed to serve the new lots and/or garages.”
I put other and typed in “both.” I think we need to do both things. We need more parking and we need to expand alternatives.
That’s the feedback I entered. Hopefully this will inspire some conversation on here, and you can go fill it out too.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
and more
Can’t have that cake and nosh on it, too, bub.
Anyway, I also had some issues with how the questions were asked, also because answering “other” requires more work. This survey is only live for a week for some reason.
But – more than that – I don’t like at all how we’re asked to prioritize a street for one use, and not add a second complementary use. Also, some streets should have different priorities in different spots: While 3rd St. makes sense as a priority route for bikes as it leads directly into the main east-west route on campus – perhaps a good north-south route through Downtown would come up from South Davis and the Arboretum to D St., then follow it to 3rd, turn right and then left onto G, eventually at the northern gateway to Downtown at H and 8th (and connected to a bike route on H all the way to the tunnel and under East Covell to the edge of town…) Other parts of D could have other priorities, as could G south of 3rd. (My idea is also that both of the routes would never require bikes to stop, except under exceptional circumstances, an they would yield to pedestrians.)
I think I answered that three streets have ped priority, two streets buses and two streets bikes (as mentioned). Cars can use peripheral routes, but a route that transects the ped priority route on 2nd St. is a problem.
A large, normally empty square – e.g. an expansion of the E. St. Plaza – lends itself to all sorts of uses but in the summer it should not be unbearable. Perhaps some kind of semi-portable water feature would be possible.
Anyway, the consultants are good, and all of this will get folded into the ongoing visioning, including another charrette at Davis Community Church in the middle of July…
Like Todd I ride my bike often, but unlike Todd I know that there is nothing Davis can do to get the 375 pound women that shop at Save Mart or the hard working guys in the trades to stop driving and start riding bikes to the store and to work.
Yesterday I rode my bike to have lunch at Taqueria Guadalajara. As usual my bike was the only bike locked up in the multiple bike racks in front of the place as I waited in line watching guys parking their F350s before they got in line behind me and watching huge women (some bigger than the typical Woodland Walmart shopper) waddle in to Save Mart.
When people that live, work and shop in the city almost always take cars the city needs to “prioritize” cars when they plan a city.
[moderator] Please stop with these sorts of characterizations. They contribute nothing to the conversation and are offensive.
That particular location has the added problem of being a skeevey hang out. Neither my wife nor my kids will go there without me and never on bikes. They will also choose the three pigs instead.
Riding a bike is perceived as being less safe if there is a hostile environment and both the physical layout and the local fauna come into play.
Speaks volumes… particularly references to “skeevey”, “hangout”, “hostile environment”, and “local fauna” (buzz word for… ?)
Only “three pigs”?
Three pigs is a reference to the statue in front of Peets and is how the plaza is often referred to in my neck of the woods, it’s a north Davis thing.
The Save Mart plaza is dreary with lots of bleached out colors and cement. It has an old neglected air and perhaps that is why it attracts a more vocal and threatening crowd.
You missed my point, but that’s probably for the better…
I know much more about the “dancing pigs”, Marketplace, the developers, and the history re: pavement problems (largely corrected now), than you ever will… so don’t ‘patronize me’…
And, I know all about Senda Nueva, and Covell Park Northstar, parts of Covell Park (anything built after 1979, and some, before), and how public funds were expended to get those areas out of the flood plain, manipulating the public decision-makers to do so for great profit…
My first/second hand knowledge is more than much more than 400 lbs!
“‘patronize me’
So you want to be anonymous AND get offended when someone does not credit you your history and experience?
Sounds like a diagnosis.
Jim, we’ve always referred to it as the pig market. My neighbors have often called it that too.
It is funny that my post pointing out (the fact) that people that weigh twice as much as me are MUCH less likely to ride a bike is offensive, but no one has a problem of another poster’s (opinion) that the mall where I buy stuff and eat lunch is “skeevey”…
I do have a problem with that characterization. So, EVERYBODY: please stop talking about what people weigh, stop using derogatory references, stop all these judgmental characterizations. Just focus on the issues and topics.
So why should we prioritize an undesirable activity choice? If break ins are common in a neighborhood, should we just set up a policy to continue to accommodate break ins? I understand my example is extreme, but it is analogous. It’s time to discourage automobile travel (which likely will lead to improved physical conditioning as well).
People who buy taxable merchandise have a bias for car travel.
Taxable merchandise is SO 20th Century.
The tax Savior is coming, cannabis be thy name.
Who gets to decide what is an “undesirable activity choice?” I don’t watch TV and think it is “undesirable” and not watching TV will likely lead to improved physical conditioning, so should the city have a $1,000/year Cable TV tax (or add a tax to the iced coffee drinks that (after adding syrup and whip cream) have as many calories as three (3) 12 ounce cans of Classic Coke)?
To a lot of people, I would say a huge majority, using an automobile is a very desirable choice. Like Ken said, who decides what is desirable?
re: specific, highly-descriptive weight comments
Really?
We should be handing out awards to Vanguard commenters for using unnecessarily-offensive terminology to make their point, so that most anyone who may have considered their otherwise decent point clicked their brains to “off” and rejected the author and their point along with it. I can certainly think of two candidates for first and second place ribbons.
What I don’t get is — WHY? I have no problem with “conservative”-leaning arguments. I do have a problem with insulting and offending people while making the argument, mainly because it negates what could have been a decent discussion and often turns it personal and/or “moderated”.
I see they’ve managed to work in the latest buzzword in retail consulting: “experiential retail.” Folks might wish to know what that means.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregmaloney/2018/05/23/six-dimensions-of-experiential-retail-and-the-top-20-retailers-at-delivering-it/#4a8461644586
They might wish to spend an hour or so with an actual retail consultant and ask a simple question:
“What is the likelihood that any such ‘destination’ ‘experiential’ retailer will locate in downtown Davis?”
I would say the answer is close to zero chance.
Davis will be a retail destination for boutique shops, and eateries geared toward college students. With respect to parking and circulation, the city should plan accordingly. Presently there is an increase in the entertainment/eatery category, which leads to increased parking issues at certain times of day. I see no particular reason to believe that trend is going to change.
I agree with this.
And related to this, I think we are missing the reality boat for envisioning Davis development and growth progress.
Davis is the population size that warrants a flip in planning from thinking central core retail hub to neighborhood hubs with connectivity. This lack of warranted thinking is the product of the politically active downtown residents wanting their cake and eat it too. They seem to be jealous of the potential for any new compelling retail on the periphery and thus blocking it from happening… but also blocking any significant expansion of the retail in their own backyard. There is a sense of privilege and elitism in their Davis worldview… masked with a healthy dose of virtue signaling for the politically correct memes of the day.
But go to any other attractive and vibrant city with 70,000 residents (other than tourist locations) and you will fine discrete neighborhoods of commercial activity. That is a natural growth evolution. Davis is anything but natural in this respect. And in those cities experiencing the natural growth evolution downtown becomes “old town” and it goes through a cycle of redevelopment which leads to the same changes we see in Davis… more entertainment with office and residential. The difference with Davis is that we keep allowing the lie to perpetuate that the Davis downtown can remain all that. We do so by allowing the privileged downtown residence the power to block every other peripheral commercial product that is proposed. Meanwhile the Davis downtown goes downhill and Davis retail tax dollars go to other cities.
The approach of protecting downtown property owners from the competition has become so pervasive over time that it is now written into our municipal code. If you want to know why Davis performs so poorly in per capita sales tax receipts compared to other California Cities it is because of this downtown first (and only) approach.
The community knew back in the ’60’s that the downtown as it was constituted at the time was not sufficient to be the retail core of a city projected to reach 70,000 people by the early ’80’s. If you look at the ’61 CASP you will see many of the same ideas presented that are in this most recent iteration, with one major exception. In the ’61 plan, the idea was to make the downtown larger and taller to allow for greater economic activity, while the current idea really is to limit significant growth to a few blocks in the central core while leaving the bulk of the downtown as it is.
According to the information presented at the Charrette, Davis now has 85,000 residents in its planning region, but we still have a downtown that is physically much as it was in ’61 because of our decision to protect the downtown rather than allowing it to grow and evolve. The current effort at developing a new CASP looks like a continuation of the status quo, with a few design changes to make it ‘prettier.’ I have not seen anything presented that indicates that there will be any transformative change coming from this process, so we should expect our poor economic performance to continue.
I don’t really understand why we’re going through this process without considering the entire retail environment of the city.
The easy answer is to make sure you stay involved and work on the new General Plan process?
I agree that some friendly-retail and entertainment clusters in updated settings – where no one has to walk or drive across a parking lot to their hangout – is necessary all over the City. But we’re not big enough for more than one “real” town centre (Euro-spelling intentional). We need to maximize convivial and safe access to a dialed-up Downtown by all means – from driving to walking, where the former is predictable for finding a space one to three blocks from a destination and where the latter is predictably child- and elder-friendly.
Pedestrian-optimized, bicycle- and transit-friendly, peripheral parking-based Downtowns/town centers are huge economic generators.
In the past I have argued for careful planning that doesn’t disrupt or siphon off tax revenues from the downtown core. But I disagree with your assertion here. Residents of Lake Alhambra, Stonegate, and much of South Davis have little connection to the downtown for their shopping needs at this point. Part of that is distance, but much of it has to do with the changing nature of downtown businesses that has occurred over the last decade. Our apparent inability to solve the rather intractable downtown parking issue is another factor. People who want to drive to their shopping destination and park near it are not attracted to the downtown any more. Because of these changes, I’ve come to accept that our “neighborhood shopping centers” will likely need to become satellite town “centres.”
It’s not just about shopping.
Come for the markets. Linger in the restaurants. Stay for the arguments. Downtown Davis, California.
> Normally I probably irritate Old East Davis
True, whether you take a shortcut through it or not.
The effort to build housing downtown has no relationship to “improving” business activities downtown. In fact, it will increase conflict, between existing businesses and (new) residences. And, if the downtown is redeveloped in that manner (e.g., multi-story mixed use), it will entirely change the types of businesses that remain on the ground floor (and can afford to stay there).
This idea that is being put forth is simply to build more housing, in a commercial area. Let’s call it what it is, instead of pretending otherwise. Apparently, some want to convert downtown to (yet) another semi-residential area.
I don’t speak for everyone on this, but my purpose is the belief that (A) work force housing is needed in Davis and (B) the idea that bringing residents to downtown will augment retail and entertainment venues. Not sure of your point when you say, “this is being put forth is simply to build more housing in a commercial area” – well duh. What else would it be? Putting forth more housing in a commercial area serves both the need for housing and the need for a vibrant commercial area.
Downtown is probably the least-likely location for (affordable) workforce housing, given the cost of redevelopment (and location). It would more likely be a place for wealthier, probably older residents.
Regarding bringing residents downtown – increasing residential density will discourage those from surrounding neighborhoods (and visitors) from patronizing downtown businesses. It will become too much of a hassle, and the types of businesses that remain may not appeal to them. (As an example of the conflicts and changes that will occur, refer to the resistance to build a small parking lot, for Davis ACE.) In addition, some types of businesses are not conducive to a semi-residential setting, especially where new residents are paying top dollar to live there.
You know not of which you speak. At least 4 factual errors…
Howard: Suggest that you state them – or don’t suggest otherwise. Hopefully, with some kind of evidence of “factual errors”.
Adding housing in downtown areas has been a staple of urban planning for decades now. The idea is to expand the retail base, to provide built-in consumers for the retail stores that are there. There is a limit to how much can be provided, since it is generally just the upper floors of buildings that are retail/commercial/residential. The housing appeals to a certain demographic, and is not generally intended to be affordable. Wealthier, yes. Older, probably not.
It is generally considered to make an area safer because there are residents all the time, rather than just people coming at certain times of day.
Don: Thanks, but I’m waiting for Howard to provide evidence of “at least 4 factual errors”, in reference to what I stated.
As a side note, most of what you stated does not conflict with what I noted. However, you’ve added at least one other point, which may not apply in Davis. (I’d rather just wait for Howard’s response, before considering whether or not to engage further on that.)
“It would more likely be a place for wealthier, probably older residents.”
First of all, why would an older resident want to live in a more urban environment?
Second, why would an older resident want to rent (assuming the units are rentals rather than condos)
Third, why would it be any different than other rental units? Scalable and sharable?
Apparently this is who will be living there. This was tweeted by Chancellor May.
https://livability.com/top-10/culture/10-best-cities-for-stem-workers/2018/ca/davis
David: Is your name “Howard”? 🙂
Are there actually 3 “Howard’s” on here? (You, Don, and Howard?)
And yet, you recently admonished me – regarding how I get dragged into responding, on here? (And then wouldn’t even allow me to respond?)
Still waiting for evidence of “at least 4 factual errors” in my original post.
I’m not responding to Howard’s comment, I was responding to your comment. I’m not claiming four factual errors. I asked three questions.
Ron, first I don’t care about Howard P’s comment, so respond to this one.
Increased residential density appears to INCREASE attractiveness to outside residents and visitors. It is environmental vitality that is a key component to driving retail business activity. I’m not sure which businesses you’re envisioning are or will be downtown that attract residents outside of the downtown but will be driven out by downtown resident customers. We’re already having a problem keeping retail businesses going downtown-just walk down 2nd St. You’re putting out hypotheticals that I can’t envision, so you need to be much more specific.
With enough density, not wasting $30,000 on individual parking spaces (or at least un-bundling parking from rent) and modest size, it seems that we could have a good amount of modestly-priced housing Downtown, or next to it.
I am assuming that re-developing Civic Plaza for multi-use will have an economic bonus because the City owns the land, and there’s already infrastructure, but how much of the cost of housing is the land underneath it?
Don’t dare to tell me what to do…
You of all, make statements that you never back up when challenged…
Back up one of your “falsities” with facts and documentation, as you seem to demand from moi, or “I shouldn’t say them”
Cite your facts, sources…
Cite your facts, sources…
Ibid.
Ibid.
You throw stuff out, portending (or pretending?) to be “facts”, without justification, and when challenged, as I do now, you “have no game”… but you demand iron-clad proof that you are “blowing smoke”…
Howard: Let’s retrace our communications:
Ron, that’s incorrect. Studies and experience are showing that mixing housing and retail is an enhancement to business activity in many locations. There is not an increase in conflict, and residents understand what trade offs they are making between urban, suburban and rural living. And the ground floor businesses will thrive with the very local customer base.
Richard: Still waiting for evidence of “at least 4 errors”, in my original post. You’ve put forth some opinions.
I’ve already provided one example, of a business that was “challenged”, in reference to their needs (Davis ACE). Really? That’s the business that some want to interfere with?
Other examples might include loud restaurants/nightclubs, cannabis dispensaries, etc. I’m sure that there are others, who would either be driven out (or wouldn’t be able to afford the new rents).
And again, as the downtown becomes more of a hassle to deal with, fewer will visit from other neighborhoods (and beyond).
Some people seem to think that people having housing above retail is some crazy new “urban planning trend” and are not aware that many of the first barbers, bankers and merchants in Davisville (like almost every other town in CA) lived in the urban area and they didn’t drive to a 3,000sf home east of downtown over looking a man made lake or ride on a bike path to a more modest home west of downtown with a community garden every day after work…
Ken: Not sure if your comment was made in response to mine, but yes – I’m aware of that. Probably from the time before cars and peripheral housing were widely available and accessible. (And, in highly urbanized areas which didn’t have other viable options.)
If the city of Davis simply wants to build more housing downtown (and replace existing customers with new ones – who would then live downtown), then the current trend seems to support that. I suspect that some developers would prefer to entirely eliminate the commercial components of mixed-use developments, downtown and elsewhere. (But, that wouldn’t be politically popular.)
Still wondering how viable the “businesses” are, at the mixed-use development at Fifth and Pena. (Previously zoned as commercial, I believe.)
David, I understand if you feel that you should be able to enter more than one priority, but the fact is that you’re not the only one participating. This is compilation of many responses, and they want to know your SINGLE HIGHEST priority. Others will add their single priorities, and in the end those priorities compiled and ranked.
They could have done a different approach using the “dot” method. You get say, 10 dots, and you can place those on each priority with the number of dots measuring your strength of preference. That could have helped with the ranking as well.
Fair enough, I was basically filling out the survey as I wrote this. And reacting in real time. I was hoping it would generate some discussion (which it has).
I have asked this before.
What other comparable places in the US do you think are good models for Davis to emulate?
Note that this questions is a bit rhetorical as there have never been any good answers. I think the reason is that unicorns don’t actually exist. If you cannot find any examples that match what you want to see in Davis, then it is likely that what you want to see in Davis isn’t feasible.
But please prove me wrong.
Probably doesn’t prove you wrong in any way, but this is an interesting list that the chancellor just tweeted. Other than Albuquerque, the others are mostly close in population to Davis. I wonder how they compare in other regards.
2018 10 Best Cities for STEM Workers
Huntsville, AL. 185,594
Longmont, CO. 89,814
Davis CA. 66,510
Albuquerque, NM. 556,092
Milpitas, CA 71,533
Gaithersburg, MD. 64,945
Franklin, TN 72,639
Kirkland, WA 84,721
Richardson, TX 106,123
Miami Beach, FL. 91,564
https://livability.com/top-10/culture/10-best-cities-for-stem-workers/2018
Thanks for the list. I will start my research to see how they match-up and differ with Davis.
Well Davis appears broken by the data in this list from the US Census. I got a laugh when I got to Miami Beach to finally find a small city with a higher population density… but then it is a sand peninsula.
http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/images/CityCompare.jpg
I’ve honestly never heard of about half of those cities. I’m curious what they have that makes them attractive, by some subjective measure, to STEM graduates. Have they redeveloped their downtowns? Cultural amenities? What are the strengths and do they have sustainable budgets?
I always thought Miami Beach was a retirement place.
Good afternoon David,
Can you please edit the Virtual Community Workshop URL? It should be:
http://www.cityofdavis.org/EnvisionDowntownDavis
Thank you,
Isabelle Gaillard
Downtown Davis Plan Team
Thanks – yes
Although not in the US, I would nominate Freiburg, Germany as a city to emulate. It’s a university town and cultural and science hub. It has a strong economy, and is known for its sustainability. I’ve been there several times and it’s lovely. I found the following article on how the city has achieved success, and I found the “Lessons Learned” section to be interesting as it might pertain to Davis.
Lessons Learned
Implement controversial policies in stages, choosing projects that everyone agrees on first.
Keep plans flexible and adaptable over time to allow for changing conditions.
Policies should include both sticks and carrots to encourage people to change behaviour, i.e. making parking more expensive and difficult, but making public transport, cycling and walking much easier.
Organise land use and transportation on an integrated basis to ensure that travel distances can be kept short.
Involving the citizens should be an integral part of policy development and implementation.
Support from regional and national government is vital in helping local policies to work.
Long-term goals need to be pursued on a consistent basis.
City leaders have to be committed to long-term engagement, but always with the support and engagement of the people.
Be creative and tactical in working with a wide range of different investors and other actors.
Be proud of the achievements and celebrate them with the citizens.
Continuity is vital.
Source: https://www.world-habitat.org/world-habitat-awards/winners-and-finalists/30-years-of-planning-continuity-in-freiburg-germany/
I was wondering if someone would mention a European town. I have had this feeling that many of the people in Davis that have strong opinions about growth are trying to recreate their European holiday experiences in their everyday existence. I wonder though if it is feasible to model an American city after a European city. Infrastructure that is 1000s of years old vs 100s of years old. Davis has really crappy architecture comparatively.
And from my quick check of Freiburg, Germany it is substantially larger than Davis.
This is an interesting image though. I think Tia Will would not support this in her own back yard. Too many stories. Shad on the bungalows (egad!) She has proven it with her opposition to Trackside. In fact, I think she should change her name to Tia Won’t!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_im_Breisgau#/media/File:Combino_Freiburg.jpg
Cindy,
Thanks for sharing. Looks like a great place to visit.
I truly commend your list of their lessons learned and the principles involved – but how do you propose to find consensus on the first item in your list? Not trying to be difficult, but who would you propose to even lead that discussion?
Like Jeff, however, I had a very difficult time translating their locational circumstances and economy, embrace of sweat-equity based home ownership, and general attitudes towards growth – with prevailing sentiments in Davis circa 2020.
Five times the physical size, almost half the population density, more than three times the population, destination vacation resort economy, heart of a wine producing region – I’m struggling to find the basis for comparison.
One particular commenter, doubtless impressed with his own cleverness, is conveniently failing to mention my very public support of Nishi 1 & 2, and of the Lincoln 40 which is much closer to my home than is Trackside. Also failing to mention that my opposition to Trackside was based on it being limited to luxury units instead of actually needed housing.
I think I went fishing and caught one!
I don’t think Lincoln 40 is closer to your home than is Trackside. You have criticized Trackside for throwing shade into your yard, no?
Look at the image I posted. Those are 3-4 and 5-story buildings. I am guessing that they have retail below and residences above. Some of those residences might be “luxury” whatever the he _ _ that means (hardwood floors and granite counter tops?) Nishi 1 and 2 are not in your back yard.
But I do accept and acknowledge your point that you have been known to support projects that no-growers like Ron reject before they are even proposed.
I believe she is correct as the crow flies
“First of all, why would an older resident want to live in a more urban environment?”
Not attempting to speak for anyone else, but my main reason was the improved walkability. For much of my early adult life, I did very well without a car. I did not develop the emotional attachment that some seem to have for their cars and would ultimately like to have minimal dependence on the private automobile.
People who are very in favor of the private automobile do not seem to realize that our preference is based not on some natural human preference, but rather on how we were raised and how our society has favored the automobile over public transportation at virtually every decision making turning point. Had we emphasized the cost savings, environmental preservation, good health, and convenience of public transportation over the private automobile, the majority would likely favor public transportation instead.
Lots of friends that grew up in NY suburbs have had older parents move to the city just like lots of friends that grew up in SF suburbs have parents move to the city when they become “empty nesters”. A 4,000sf home on a half acre is great when you have kids but it is more than the average older couple needs or wants. I don’t know any of the seniors that take “public” transportation since in the US it is a big mess (literally a mess in SF where the homeless uses buses and BART as moving bathrooms) and I’m guessing that 90%+ of people taking “public” transportation in the US do it since they can’t afford to drive, take a cab or take Uber…
P.S. Every now and then I will hit the public transportation button on my iPhone when switching from driving directions to riding directions and it is amazing how slow it is. It takes about a half hour to drive from Dixon to Woodland, but it will take two hours each way on public transportation (longer than it takes to drive each way from Dixon to Truckee)…
Interesting… in Pittsburgh, PA, early 2000’s my aunt regularly used public transit into her 80’s… guess Pittsburgh is different than SF…
When we visited Manhattan in the mid 2000’s, lots of “seniors” used the subways and buses… guess SF is an outlier…
And yeah, Davis has a lot of defecation/urination on Yolobus and Unitrans…
Probably why Unitrans is free to seniors (over 60)… they can get a pass at the Senior Center… but they have to sign a waiver about all the excrement…
You have to go to the Bay area if you want to find a lot of defecation, urination or used hypodermic needles on public transit.
“In response to a growing number of complaints from Bay Area riders of needles littering the region’s transit system — as well as a media report of a woman being pricked by a hypodermic needle — BART is enlisting more members for its rapid response team to manage urgent cleaning needs on trains and a mobile option for passengers to file biohazard complaints, the agency announced Wednesday.”
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Drug-needle-reports-on-BART-including-woman-12955354.php
For me it’s very problematic that the question about priority refers to the whole length of a street section inside Downtown. After all, while some streets are ideally agreed upon for cycling priority, such as 3rd from campus to Old East, and by the same token all of 1st, B within Downtown and 5th will likely end up as car or bus-priority, E and F have certain needs if E St. Plaza is expanded into an actual plaza (!), and the latter is probably the best motor vehicle route to the north (north of 5th; and I think that it’s an interesting idea to then move the main cycle route to H, with a priority “gateway” to the designated Downtown at 8th St — this will form part of the cycling priority to the Arboretum via G, 3rd and D, connecting on 3rd to the priority route I mentioned…)
Ranking will come after everything’s collected, but – unless comments are added – how will the survey team know if people prefer certain sections superior to others for a particular use? I don’t see how this type of answer can be derived from the raw data.
Comment noted.