I’ve seen this all before in a way, having grown up in another college town which in most respects was not very student friendly. For some reason, there are constant wars between the town folks who are permanent residents and the students who are treated more like outside invaders than economic livelihood makers. There are many differences in San Luis Obispo and Davis, but there seem to be some major similarities, most notably that the university comprises a tremendous percentage of the economy both directly in terms of employment and indirectly in terms of drawing students who then spent their money on the retail and entertainment in the town. The other similarity is darker and more insidious, and that is the attitude of the townsfolk toward the temporary residents.
The recent debate over the 3rd and B St Visioning Project illustrates rather perfectly the tension in Davis’ identity. On the one hand, the stated purpose of the project is to bring the university together with the larger community. The project’s goal is to create “an urban village” that will include higher density homes with a stronger connection with UC Davis. On the other hand, they go about achieving that by eliminating a large number of student homes and housing on the edge of campus and replace them with owner-occupied homes. Owner-occupied homes meaning non-absent landlord, meaning not student rentals.
If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students. To the extent that there are even any of those types of businesses the closest you can come in the city is on Third Street between A and University.
The closing of Roma was a tremendous blow to the vitality of this area, but you still have a number of restaurants that rely on students coming off campus to frequent them. You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university. And you have a large concentration of student rental units not only on third street but throughout the neighborhood.
As I have stated three times now, one in each piece I have done on this project, the only part of Davis the really feels like a college town is this area of town immediately to the east of the university.
Compared with other college towns this area is extremely small in land area. In many ways it extends only up to Russell, over to B Street and down to 1st Street. That’s really four square blocks, eight if you count University as a full block in between B and A.
And yet even that small space is under attack from those in this city. As it is, I am unfortunately forced to conclude that the “vision” here is completely and fundamentally anti-student whereby one key element in the “vision” is to eliminate the presence of students in the neighborhood currently most closely associated with the university. How ironic that this is actually being sold as a means to create a stronger connection with UC Davis–how do you do that by kicking all of the current student occupants out of the neighborhood?
It is interesting to understand that this is merely the latest round is a long historical process of removing students from the Davis downtown. If this “vision” is realized, Davis residents will have achieved an end for which they have been working since at least the 1930s.
As Professor John Lofland documents in his Papers on Davis History article “A 1920s-50s Student District in Davis, California,” when Second Street was the dominant east-west link between the railroad and the UCD campus, a student district first developed on and near Second between A and B (and spread).
But in a late 1930s zoning struggle within the Davis elite that was won by the anti-student faction, student living groups–the norm of the time–were hemmed in and discouraged as a matter of public policy.
A key episode in 1938 set in motion a “student removal” (or at least strong containment) policy that has been in play ever since. So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area. (Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and ’80s.)
[Click here to view the paper drawn from above]
Student removal is thus an old story and debate. It is a constant struggle in Davis, at least according to Professor Lofland. So far this debate has not been framed in these terms, but rather as a debate between development and preservation. However, it seems of necessity to look at the overall impact of this policy if it is carried out.
The majority on council has taken strong measures to portray itself as pro-university. But the student population comprises 30,000 people. How can a city council be pro-university if their policies harm the largest consumers of university services and thus put greater strain on the university once again to provide adequate and affordable residences for its student population.
We should further note that this debate takes place at the end of Spring Quarter, just as students are about to take their finals. The students are not even paying attention to this issue. But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Well said. I own a building in this area and am completely opposed to the City’s plans. I think that this whole “visioning process” is farce. To put the discussion in perspective, try to substitute the word “blacks” for “students” it would really make this debate a lot more interesting as the city actively discriminates against a minority and drives them from their downtown…
Well said. I own a building in this area and am completely opposed to the City’s plans. I think that this whole “visioning process” is farce. To put the discussion in perspective, try to substitute the word “blacks” for “students” it would really make this debate a lot more interesting as the city actively discriminates against a minority and drives them from their downtown…
Well said. I own a building in this area and am completely opposed to the City’s plans. I think that this whole “visioning process” is farce. To put the discussion in perspective, try to substitute the word “blacks” for “students” it would really make this debate a lot more interesting as the city actively discriminates against a minority and drives them from their downtown…
Well said. I own a building in this area and am completely opposed to the City’s plans. I think that this whole “visioning process” is farce. To put the discussion in perspective, try to substitute the word “blacks” for “students” it would really make this debate a lot more interesting as the city actively discriminates against a minority and drives them from their downtown…
The Council Majority IS pro-University(a Vanderhoef vision of UCD, that is). Our Council Majority’s “vision” parallels the current UCD administration ,i.e. policy decisions determined by the “bottom line” and an fundamental disrespect for the student’s(and Davis voters ). The wonderful optimism and exhuberance of youth with its passion for justice and willingness to consider alternatives are seen by both as an unacceptable threat to the established Order.
The Council Majority IS pro-University(a Vanderhoef vision of UCD, that is). Our Council Majority’s “vision” parallels the current UCD administration ,i.e. policy decisions determined by the “bottom line” and an fundamental disrespect for the student’s(and Davis voters ). The wonderful optimism and exhuberance of youth with its passion for justice and willingness to consider alternatives are seen by both as an unacceptable threat to the established Order.
The Council Majority IS pro-University(a Vanderhoef vision of UCD, that is). Our Council Majority’s “vision” parallels the current UCD administration ,i.e. policy decisions determined by the “bottom line” and an fundamental disrespect for the student’s(and Davis voters ). The wonderful optimism and exhuberance of youth with its passion for justice and willingness to consider alternatives are seen by both as an unacceptable threat to the established Order.
The Council Majority IS pro-University(a Vanderhoef vision of UCD, that is). Our Council Majority’s “vision” parallels the current UCD administration ,i.e. policy decisions determined by the “bottom line” and an fundamental disrespect for the student’s(and Davis voters ). The wonderful optimism and exhuberance of youth with its passion for justice and willingness to consider alternatives are seen by both as an unacceptable threat to the established Order.
“If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students.”
The Wake Forest Drive/Oxford Circle neighborhood is a distinctly student area. And some of the businesses in the University Mall — particularly The Graduate — are there to serve students. (For 30 years, Nation’s Giant Hamburgers in the U-Mall did the same. Fluffy’s and some of the other small shops that have been in the U-Mall also have had mostly student clientele.)
Further, you make the mistake of comparing apples to apricots. A large percentage of UC Davis students live on campus, not off. In some other college towns, because their main campuses are not so spacious, more students must live in those communities or commute. But that is not the case, here. And because of that, a number of the businesses that cater to students are, in fact, also located on campus.
Moreover, having gone to college at a school (UCSB) which has a student ghetto (Isla Vista), I am not sure that the Davis situation — where the college students are well-integrated into the larger fabric of the community — is not much healthier. I concede that UCSB is an incredibly fun place for an undergrad, if not a very good place to be a serious student. IV and the Pacific Ocean setting make it a fun place. It’s hard for Davis students to have such wild, loud, boisterous parties, because they are mostly integrated into the fabric of our community. When they are living in a student ghetto, like IV, that is not a problem, and the partying is 10 times wilder and more destructive.
“You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university.”
Navin’s. Not Navines. (Note: I was by there a few days ago, and it has a different name on the main sign — I think it read “Davis Copy Shop.”)
“So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area.”
That is wrong. I’m not an expert on where all the frats and sororities are located. But I do know there is a sorority at 440 A Street, Chi Omega. Also, there is a student group living situation at Hillel House, also on A Street. And until very recently, the Plant House on 1st Street was a fraternity. (Alas, the boys who lived there were poor neighbors, and that helped them lose their residence. The Plant house has since been lovingly restored.)
Just a block outside of the Rice Lane neighborhood, at 2nd and C, is another sorority, Alpha something something. And I think on Rice Lane, right near A Street, there is another one.
“(Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and ’80s.)”
Is that a reference to Maynard Skinner? If so, you are wrong in assuming that Skinner is ‘one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area.’ His comments have suggested that he (and I think most of his long-time neighbors) favor owner-occupied residences on B Street. If it is not a reference to Maynard, then I can’t imagine whom you are thinking of.
“But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?”
As you know, I have publicly questioned the entire idea that you don’t want student rentals located in the project area. It seems to me that we should be encouraging off-campus dormitories which cater to kids who would walk or bike to school.
However, your conclusion is completely overblown. We’re really talking about 8 small houses that are currently student rentals being demolished in most cases or moved in 1 case. (One more will likely be moved from 3rd Street to University Avenue, just around the corner from its current location.) So with the exception of the 28 kids in those 7 little houses, most of UCD’s 30,000 students will not ‘find their prime locations for residences torn down.’
I am not saying, in any sense, that I favor demolition. I am simply stating that your argument is overwrought hyperbole.
“If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students.”
The Wake Forest Drive/Oxford Circle neighborhood is a distinctly student area. And some of the businesses in the University Mall — particularly The Graduate — are there to serve students. (For 30 years, Nation’s Giant Hamburgers in the U-Mall did the same. Fluffy’s and some of the other small shops that have been in the U-Mall also have had mostly student clientele.)
Further, you make the mistake of comparing apples to apricots. A large percentage of UC Davis students live on campus, not off. In some other college towns, because their main campuses are not so spacious, more students must live in those communities or commute. But that is not the case, here. And because of that, a number of the businesses that cater to students are, in fact, also located on campus.
Moreover, having gone to college at a school (UCSB) which has a student ghetto (Isla Vista), I am not sure that the Davis situation — where the college students are well-integrated into the larger fabric of the community — is not much healthier. I concede that UCSB is an incredibly fun place for an undergrad, if not a very good place to be a serious student. IV and the Pacific Ocean setting make it a fun place. It’s hard for Davis students to have such wild, loud, boisterous parties, because they are mostly integrated into the fabric of our community. When they are living in a student ghetto, like IV, that is not a problem, and the partying is 10 times wilder and more destructive.
“You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university.”
Navin’s. Not Navines. (Note: I was by there a few days ago, and it has a different name on the main sign — I think it read “Davis Copy Shop.”)
“So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area.”
That is wrong. I’m not an expert on where all the frats and sororities are located. But I do know there is a sorority at 440 A Street, Chi Omega. Also, there is a student group living situation at Hillel House, also on A Street. And until very recently, the Plant House on 1st Street was a fraternity. (Alas, the boys who lived there were poor neighbors, and that helped them lose their residence. The Plant house has since been lovingly restored.)
Just a block outside of the Rice Lane neighborhood, at 2nd and C, is another sorority, Alpha something something. And I think on Rice Lane, right near A Street, there is another one.
“(Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and ’80s.)”
Is that a reference to Maynard Skinner? If so, you are wrong in assuming that Skinner is ‘one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area.’ His comments have suggested that he (and I think most of his long-time neighbors) favor owner-occupied residences on B Street. If it is not a reference to Maynard, then I can’t imagine whom you are thinking of.
“But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?”
As you know, I have publicly questioned the entire idea that you don’t want student rentals located in the project area. It seems to me that we should be encouraging off-campus dormitories which cater to kids who would walk or bike to school.
However, your conclusion is completely overblown. We’re really talking about 8 small houses that are currently student rentals being demolished in most cases or moved in 1 case. (One more will likely be moved from 3rd Street to University Avenue, just around the corner from its current location.) So with the exception of the 28 kids in those 7 little houses, most of UCD’s 30,000 students will not ‘find their prime locations for residences torn down.’
I am not saying, in any sense, that I favor demolition. I am simply stating that your argument is overwrought hyperbole.
“If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students.”
The Wake Forest Drive/Oxford Circle neighborhood is a distinctly student area. And some of the businesses in the University Mall — particularly The Graduate — are there to serve students. (For 30 years, Nation’s Giant Hamburgers in the U-Mall did the same. Fluffy’s and some of the other small shops that have been in the U-Mall also have had mostly student clientele.)
Further, you make the mistake of comparing apples to apricots. A large percentage of UC Davis students live on campus, not off. In some other college towns, because their main campuses are not so spacious, more students must live in those communities or commute. But that is not the case, here. And because of that, a number of the businesses that cater to students are, in fact, also located on campus.
Moreover, having gone to college at a school (UCSB) which has a student ghetto (Isla Vista), I am not sure that the Davis situation — where the college students are well-integrated into the larger fabric of the community — is not much healthier. I concede that UCSB is an incredibly fun place for an undergrad, if not a very good place to be a serious student. IV and the Pacific Ocean setting make it a fun place. It’s hard for Davis students to have such wild, loud, boisterous parties, because they are mostly integrated into the fabric of our community. When they are living in a student ghetto, like IV, that is not a problem, and the partying is 10 times wilder and more destructive.
“You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university.”
Navin’s. Not Navines. (Note: I was by there a few days ago, and it has a different name on the main sign — I think it read “Davis Copy Shop.”)
“So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area.”
That is wrong. I’m not an expert on where all the frats and sororities are located. But I do know there is a sorority at 440 A Street, Chi Omega. Also, there is a student group living situation at Hillel House, also on A Street. And until very recently, the Plant House on 1st Street was a fraternity. (Alas, the boys who lived there were poor neighbors, and that helped them lose their residence. The Plant house has since been lovingly restored.)
Just a block outside of the Rice Lane neighborhood, at 2nd and C, is another sorority, Alpha something something. And I think on Rice Lane, right near A Street, there is another one.
“(Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and ’80s.)”
Is that a reference to Maynard Skinner? If so, you are wrong in assuming that Skinner is ‘one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area.’ His comments have suggested that he (and I think most of his long-time neighbors) favor owner-occupied residences on B Street. If it is not a reference to Maynard, then I can’t imagine whom you are thinking of.
“But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?”
As you know, I have publicly questioned the entire idea that you don’t want student rentals located in the project area. It seems to me that we should be encouraging off-campus dormitories which cater to kids who would walk or bike to school.
However, your conclusion is completely overblown. We’re really talking about 8 small houses that are currently student rentals being demolished in most cases or moved in 1 case. (One more will likely be moved from 3rd Street to University Avenue, just around the corner from its current location.) So with the exception of the 28 kids in those 7 little houses, most of UCD’s 30,000 students will not ‘find their prime locations for residences torn down.’
I am not saying, in any sense, that I favor demolition. I am simply stating that your argument is overwrought hyperbole.
“If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students.”
The Wake Forest Drive/Oxford Circle neighborhood is a distinctly student area. And some of the businesses in the University Mall — particularly The Graduate — are there to serve students. (For 30 years, Nation’s Giant Hamburgers in the U-Mall did the same. Fluffy’s and some of the other small shops that have been in the U-Mall also have had mostly student clientele.)
Further, you make the mistake of comparing apples to apricots. A large percentage of UC Davis students live on campus, not off. In some other college towns, because their main campuses are not so spacious, more students must live in those communities or commute. But that is not the case, here. And because of that, a number of the businesses that cater to students are, in fact, also located on campus.
Moreover, having gone to college at a school (UCSB) which has a student ghetto (Isla Vista), I am not sure that the Davis situation — where the college students are well-integrated into the larger fabric of the community — is not much healthier. I concede that UCSB is an incredibly fun place for an undergrad, if not a very good place to be a serious student. IV and the Pacific Ocean setting make it a fun place. It’s hard for Davis students to have such wild, loud, boisterous parties, because they are mostly integrated into the fabric of our community. When they are living in a student ghetto, like IV, that is not a problem, and the partying is 10 times wilder and more destructive.
“You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university.”
Navin’s. Not Navines. (Note: I was by there a few days ago, and it has a different name on the main sign — I think it read “Davis Copy Shop.”)
“So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area.”
That is wrong. I’m not an expert on where all the frats and sororities are located. But I do know there is a sorority at 440 A Street, Chi Omega. Also, there is a student group living situation at Hillel House, also on A Street. And until very recently, the Plant House on 1st Street was a fraternity. (Alas, the boys who lived there were poor neighbors, and that helped them lose their residence. The Plant house has since been lovingly restored.)
Just a block outside of the Rice Lane neighborhood, at 2nd and C, is another sorority, Alpha something something. And I think on Rice Lane, right near A Street, there is another one.
“(Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and ’80s.)”
Is that a reference to Maynard Skinner? If so, you are wrong in assuming that Skinner is ‘one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area.’ His comments have suggested that he (and I think most of his long-time neighbors) favor owner-occupied residences on B Street. If it is not a reference to Maynard, then I can’t imagine whom you are thinking of.
“But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?”
As you know, I have publicly questioned the entire idea that you don’t want student rentals located in the project area. It seems to me that we should be encouraging off-campus dormitories which cater to kids who would walk or bike to school.
However, your conclusion is completely overblown. We’re really talking about 8 small houses that are currently student rentals being demolished in most cases or moved in 1 case. (One more will likely be moved from 3rd Street to University Avenue, just around the corner from its current location.) So with the exception of the 28 kids in those 7 little houses, most of UCD’s 30,000 students will not ‘find their prime locations for residences torn down.’
I am not saying, in any sense, that I favor demolition. I am simply stating that your argument is overwrought hyperbole.
I think the number of students living in the area under discussion is tiny compared to the other parts of the city where students live.
There are large student populations in the new apartments in South Davis, up along Sycamore north of Covell, as well as the Wake Forest/Sycamore area Rich describes. One of the foundations of Davis planning (until the Target vote) was providing neighborhood shopping for those residents. And providing concentrations of students helps the neighborhood centers.
The most successful centers have lots of student-occupied apartments nearby: Marketplace for the north Davis residents, and Oakshade for the south Davis residents. Encouraging more student housing in west Davis would help the Westlake center.
The migration of student residents outward from the center has been going on since I was a student in the 1970’s, and has been pretty successfully managed here. I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
I think the number of students living in the area under discussion is tiny compared to the other parts of the city where students live.
There are large student populations in the new apartments in South Davis, up along Sycamore north of Covell, as well as the Wake Forest/Sycamore area Rich describes. One of the foundations of Davis planning (until the Target vote) was providing neighborhood shopping for those residents. And providing concentrations of students helps the neighborhood centers.
The most successful centers have lots of student-occupied apartments nearby: Marketplace for the north Davis residents, and Oakshade for the south Davis residents. Encouraging more student housing in west Davis would help the Westlake center.
The migration of student residents outward from the center has been going on since I was a student in the 1970’s, and has been pretty successfully managed here. I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
I think the number of students living in the area under discussion is tiny compared to the other parts of the city where students live.
There are large student populations in the new apartments in South Davis, up along Sycamore north of Covell, as well as the Wake Forest/Sycamore area Rich describes. One of the foundations of Davis planning (until the Target vote) was providing neighborhood shopping for those residents. And providing concentrations of students helps the neighborhood centers.
The most successful centers have lots of student-occupied apartments nearby: Marketplace for the north Davis residents, and Oakshade for the south Davis residents. Encouraging more student housing in west Davis would help the Westlake center.
The migration of student residents outward from the center has been going on since I was a student in the 1970’s, and has been pretty successfully managed here. I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
I think the number of students living in the area under discussion is tiny compared to the other parts of the city where students live.
There are large student populations in the new apartments in South Davis, up along Sycamore north of Covell, as well as the Wake Forest/Sycamore area Rich describes. One of the foundations of Davis planning (until the Target vote) was providing neighborhood shopping for those residents. And providing concentrations of students helps the neighborhood centers.
The most successful centers have lots of student-occupied apartments nearby: Marketplace for the north Davis residents, and Oakshade for the south Davis residents. Encouraging more student housing in west Davis would help the Westlake center.
The migration of student residents outward from the center has been going on since I was a student in the 1970’s, and has been pretty successfully managed here. I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
“I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.”
I went to graduate school at UCSD and can confirm what Don says. With the slight exception of University City — which is more than a mile from campus, but does have a lot of school-owned apartmentss — there is no off-campus student community around UCSD. La Jolla has some students — I was fortunate to live there one year — but La Jolla on the whole is terribly expensive. Most off-campus UCSD students commute in from quite far away, even some driving down from North County.
Of all of the college towns that I’m familiar with in California, I would say Davis has the best integration of students into the community, without being a commuter school.
“I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.”
I went to graduate school at UCSD and can confirm what Don says. With the slight exception of University City — which is more than a mile from campus, but does have a lot of school-owned apartmentss — there is no off-campus student community around UCSD. La Jolla has some students — I was fortunate to live there one year — but La Jolla on the whole is terribly expensive. Most off-campus UCSD students commute in from quite far away, even some driving down from North County.
Of all of the college towns that I’m familiar with in California, I would say Davis has the best integration of students into the community, without being a commuter school.
“I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.”
I went to graduate school at UCSD and can confirm what Don says. With the slight exception of University City — which is more than a mile from campus, but does have a lot of school-owned apartmentss — there is no off-campus student community around UCSD. La Jolla has some students — I was fortunate to live there one year — but La Jolla on the whole is terribly expensive. Most off-campus UCSD students commute in from quite far away, even some driving down from North County.
Of all of the college towns that I’m familiar with in California, I would say Davis has the best integration of students into the community, without being a commuter school.
“I grew up two blocks from UCSD, and I guarantee there is no affordable student housing within walking or biking distance of that campus.”
I went to graduate school at UCSD and can confirm what Don says. With the slight exception of University City — which is more than a mile from campus, but does have a lot of school-owned apartmentss — there is no off-campus student community around UCSD. La Jolla has some students — I was fortunate to live there one year — but La Jolla on the whole is terribly expensive. Most off-campus UCSD students commute in from quite far away, even some driving down from North County.
Of all of the college towns that I’m familiar with in California, I would say Davis has the best integration of students into the community, without being a commuter school.
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
Why don’t we ask the students if they’d like their neighborhood transformed into a pre-fab, unaffordable facsimile of San Deigo?
I mean, what could be a more “effective use” of a property that is already effectively serving its purpose of housing students…
Of course, such a use is not nearly effective enough for “the greatest number of Davisites[i.e., townies who already want to turn Davis into just another ‘burb along I-80 with the property taxes rolling merrily into city coffers]”
Brian Kenyon
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
Why don’t we ask the students if they’d like their neighborhood transformed into a pre-fab, unaffordable facsimile of San Deigo?
I mean, what could be a more “effective use” of a property that is already effectively serving its purpose of housing students…
Of course, such a use is not nearly effective enough for “the greatest number of Davisites[i.e., townies who already want to turn Davis into just another ‘burb along I-80 with the property taxes rolling merrily into city coffers]”
Brian Kenyon
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
Why don’t we ask the students if they’d like their neighborhood transformed into a pre-fab, unaffordable facsimile of San Deigo?
I mean, what could be a more “effective use” of a property that is already effectively serving its purpose of housing students…
Of course, such a use is not nearly effective enough for “the greatest number of Davisites[i.e., townies who already want to turn Davis into just another ‘burb along I-80 with the property taxes rolling merrily into city coffers]”
Brian Kenyon
As to your premise (Davis anti-student?), the town/gown conflicts are typical in every town with large student populations. I think what you like about the neighborhood is the ‘funky’ character. But that may not be the most effective use of the properties in terms of benefits to the greatest number of Davisites.
Why don’t we ask the students if they’d like their neighborhood transformed into a pre-fab, unaffordable facsimile of San Deigo?
I mean, what could be a more “effective use” of a property that is already effectively serving its purpose of housing students…
Of course, such a use is not nearly effective enough for “the greatest number of Davisites[i.e., townies who already want to turn Davis into just another ‘burb along I-80 with the property taxes rolling merrily into city coffers]”
Brian Kenyon
i noticed the shift in the mid-to-late 90s, as the price of housing made it harsder for graduates to remain in town, and the city became populated by well-to-do out of towners with no connection to the university.
the council demonization of the university around that point (wagstaff, wasn’t it?) were sort of the low point. but yeah, davis is really no longer a college town. how many people go to the aggie football games, like we all used to growing up?
i noticed the shift in the mid-to-late 90s, as the price of housing made it harsder for graduates to remain in town, and the city became populated by well-to-do out of towners with no connection to the university.
the council demonization of the university around that point (wagstaff, wasn’t it?) were sort of the low point. but yeah, davis is really no longer a college town. how many people go to the aggie football games, like we all used to growing up?
i noticed the shift in the mid-to-late 90s, as the price of housing made it harsder for graduates to remain in town, and the city became populated by well-to-do out of towners with no connection to the university.
the council demonization of the university around that point (wagstaff, wasn’t it?) were sort of the low point. but yeah, davis is really no longer a college town. how many people go to the aggie football games, like we all used to growing up?
i noticed the shift in the mid-to-late 90s, as the price of housing made it harsder for graduates to remain in town, and the city became populated by well-to-do out of towners with no connection to the university.
the council demonization of the university around that point (wagstaff, wasn’t it?) were sort of the low point. but yeah, davis is really no longer a college town. how many people go to the aggie football games, like we all used to growing up?
I think the (early 90’s?) ASUCD vote to increase the Unitrans subsidy and make Unitrans “free” for undergrads contributed mightily to the spread of students throughout town. When I was an undergrad in the late 80s, the most prized (and thus most expensive) apartments were the s—holes on Anderson behind UMall and those west of Sycamore along Russell. Now there’s a huge population in South Davis near that mall that didn’t (and couldn’t) exist 20 years ago.
I think the volume of change in housing availability as a result of this project is being overblown. However, I think it should be a big concern to consider the visual effect on Central Park. I mean, it’s hot enough at the Farmers Market on Saturday mornings — what’s it going to be like when there’s a block of 3-story glass across the street reflecting the sun onto the park?
I think the (early 90’s?) ASUCD vote to increase the Unitrans subsidy and make Unitrans “free” for undergrads contributed mightily to the spread of students throughout town. When I was an undergrad in the late 80s, the most prized (and thus most expensive) apartments were the s—holes on Anderson behind UMall and those west of Sycamore along Russell. Now there’s a huge population in South Davis near that mall that didn’t (and couldn’t) exist 20 years ago.
I think the volume of change in housing availability as a result of this project is being overblown. However, I think it should be a big concern to consider the visual effect on Central Park. I mean, it’s hot enough at the Farmers Market on Saturday mornings — what’s it going to be like when there’s a block of 3-story glass across the street reflecting the sun onto the park?
I think the (early 90’s?) ASUCD vote to increase the Unitrans subsidy and make Unitrans “free” for undergrads contributed mightily to the spread of students throughout town. When I was an undergrad in the late 80s, the most prized (and thus most expensive) apartments were the s—holes on Anderson behind UMall and those west of Sycamore along Russell. Now there’s a huge population in South Davis near that mall that didn’t (and couldn’t) exist 20 years ago.
I think the volume of change in housing availability as a result of this project is being overblown. However, I think it should be a big concern to consider the visual effect on Central Park. I mean, it’s hot enough at the Farmers Market on Saturday mornings — what’s it going to be like when there’s a block of 3-story glass across the street reflecting the sun onto the park?
I think the (early 90’s?) ASUCD vote to increase the Unitrans subsidy and make Unitrans “free” for undergrads contributed mightily to the spread of students throughout town. When I was an undergrad in the late 80s, the most prized (and thus most expensive) apartments were the s—holes on Anderson behind UMall and those west of Sycamore along Russell. Now there’s a huge population in South Davis near that mall that didn’t (and couldn’t) exist 20 years ago.
I think the volume of change in housing availability as a result of this project is being overblown. However, I think it should be a big concern to consider the visual effect on Central Park. I mean, it’s hot enough at the Farmers Market on Saturday mornings — what’s it going to be like when there’s a block of 3-story glass across the street reflecting the sun onto the park?
probably no effect at all, i’d imagine. it would take buildings a lot taller than 3 stories to reflect much of anything all the way across B, and the rest of central park, and even then they’re not likely to be reflective glass office towers.
probably no effect at all, i’d imagine. it would take buildings a lot taller than 3 stories to reflect much of anything all the way across B, and the rest of central park, and even then they’re not likely to be reflective glass office towers.
probably no effect at all, i’d imagine. it would take buildings a lot taller than 3 stories to reflect much of anything all the way across B, and the rest of central park, and even then they’re not likely to be reflective glass office towers.
probably no effect at all, i’d imagine. it would take buildings a lot taller than 3 stories to reflect much of anything all the way across B, and the rest of central park, and even then they’re not likely to be reflective glass office towers.
In response to Rich’s comments :
“. . . 99.27% of people in Davis (including you in Woodland, Bobby) will
not be directly affected by this rezoning, and thus most people were not
paying close attention . . . .”
Regardless of whether persons are “directly affected” (i.e., live within
or very near this neighborhood – or are financially invested in it), the
dimensions and effects of this redevelopment project will meaningfully
influence salient characteristics of the City of Davis, which is of
significant interest to many folks, especially its general residents.
I surely realize that many times public attention and focus are quite
difficult to obtain, and that representatives are elected to serve the
public interest. What I would seek to clarify and understand, and perhaps
contest, is the precise nature of policy / political / developmental —
inertia — at hand in this particular case.
Also, relevant questions easily arise regarding the confined scope of the
EIR, and what interests might justify (or fail to support) that specific
course of project evaluation. Was there a conclusory method of project
conceptualization, which attempted to avoid consideration and evaluation
of desirable alternatives, combined with process designed to suit it?
When I state that, “(at least) serious consideration of
reconceptualization of this project is likely the best political course,”
I’m responding to several other comments which describe a council majority
politically determined to “move this project forward,” whatever that
precisely means.
Obtaining the best policy course is entirely dependent upon the political
course. Actually, Rich, I’m asking this “sensible question” about whether
or not the current project is truly the best policy course, in this
fashion, by suggesting (with judgment somewhat in abeyance) that if it
hasn’t yet occurred, “serious consideration [of robust alternatives] is
the best political course.”
Some sort of redevelopment project may well be very desirable for this
area of town, but such a project should justify itself within the present,
not be weighted toward approval for the sake of past (and perhaps infirm)
political processes.
My focus is within this “policy debate,” as you later describe it, which
is duly linked to relevant political policymakers.
Some comments have mentioned the concept of improving the transition /
connection zone between the campus and downtown, this neighborhood being
that zone. Variously improving this neighborhood is good by definition,
but not dependent on this particular project.
Language and references within the existing project’s concept of enhancing
this ‘transition’ area should be very carefully scrutinized, not accepted
at face value.
I believe there is a key element of ‘open space’ value to be found in the
relatively under-developed (at today’s planning standard) character of
this “old college town” neighborhood.
Other comments have also expressed aesthetic perspectives along these
lines, declaring that such values warrant due influence — at the very
outset of project planning — not being confined to marginal mitigations
toward the end of the process.
Perhaps, as it seems and some have said, due consideration to robust and
creative alternatives which might have better preserved these key values
was meaningfully absent from the process.
Rich, I’m confused about your remark that “this is a policy debate and we
are addressing this question in a reasonable manner, in contradistinction
to your reconceptualization assertion.”
I’m indeed implying, through earlier comment and herein, that perhaps this
project was mis-conceptualized (- somehow conclusory, best options
according to the proper scope of values not truly identified -) at its
outset, and I don’t believe I’m alone with that concern. This viewpoint is
an integral part of the present “policy debate.”
I believe that recent attention of the Vanguard to this project will
assist this policy debate in a reasonable and productive manner.
In response to don shor :
I don’t mean to exclude favorable mixing of residential and commercial
uses, just to emphasize that (in my view, in this context) housing is
actually the primary goal, with commercial uses (and everything they
entail) being carefully integrated toward best enhancing it.
As you say, don,
“I also don’t think those goals are mutually exclusive.”
I’m simply expressing the priority of assuring that commercial uses best serve the primary goal of good and affordable housing in this particular case. After all, downtown is only a very short walk away.
In response to Rich’s comments :
“. . . 99.27% of people in Davis (including you in Woodland, Bobby) will
not be directly affected by this rezoning, and thus most people were not
paying close attention . . . .”
Regardless of whether persons are “directly affected” (i.e., live within
or very near this neighborhood – or are financially invested in it), the
dimensions and effects of this redevelopment project will meaningfully
influence salient characteristics of the City of Davis, which is of
significant interest to many folks, especially its general residents.
I surely realize that many times public attention and focus are quite
difficult to obtain, and that representatives are elected to serve the
public interest. What I would seek to clarify and understand, and perhaps
contest, is the precise nature of policy / political / developmental —
inertia — at hand in this particular case.
Also, relevant questions easily arise regarding the confined scope of the
EIR, and what interests might justify (or fail to support) that specific
course of project evaluation. Was there a conclusory method of project
conceptualization, which attempted to avoid consideration and evaluation
of desirable alternatives, combined with process designed to suit it?
When I state that, “(at least) serious consideration of
reconceptualization of this project is likely the best political course,”
I’m responding to several other comments which describe a council majority
politically determined to “move this project forward,” whatever that
precisely means.
Obtaining the best policy course is entirely dependent upon the political
course. Actually, Rich, I’m asking this “sensible question” about whether
or not the current project is truly the best policy course, in this
fashion, by suggesting (with judgment somewhat in abeyance) that if it
hasn’t yet occurred, “serious consideration [of robust alternatives] is
the best political course.”
Some sort of redevelopment project may well be very desirable for this
area of town, but such a project should justify itself within the present,
not be weighted toward approval for the sake of past (and perhaps infirm)
political processes.
My focus is within this “policy debate,” as you later describe it, which
is duly linked to relevant political policymakers.
Some comments have mentioned the concept of improving the transition /
connection zone between the campus and downtown, this neighborhood being
that zone. Variously improving this neighborhood is good by definition,
but not dependent on this particular project.
Language and references within the existing project’s concept of enhancing
this ‘transition’ area should be very carefully scrutinized, not accepted
at face value.
I believe there is a key element of ‘open space’ value to be found in the
relatively under-developed (at today’s planning standard) character of
this “old college town” neighborhood.
Other comments have also expressed aesthetic perspectives along these
lines, declaring that such values warrant due influence — at the very
outset of project planning — not being confined to marginal mitigations
toward the end of the process.
Perhaps, as it seems and some have said, due consideration to robust and
creative alternatives which might have better preserved these key values
was meaningfully absent from the process.
Rich, I’m confused about your remark that “this is a policy debate and we
are addressing this question in a reasonable manner, in contradistinction
to your reconceptualization assertion.”
I’m indeed implying, through earlier comment and herein, that perhaps this
project was mis-conceptualized (- somehow conclusory, best options
according to the proper scope of values not truly identified -) at its
outset, and I don’t believe I’m alone with that concern. This viewpoint is
an integral part of the present “policy debate.”
I believe that recent attention of the Vanguard to this project will
assist this policy debate in a reasonable and productive manner.
In response to don shor :
I don’t mean to exclude favorable mixing of residential and commercial
uses, just to emphasize that (in my view, in this context) housing is
actually the primary goal, with commercial uses (and everything they
entail) being carefully integrated toward best enhancing it.
As you say, don,
“I also don’t think those goals are mutually exclusive.”
I’m simply expressing the priority of assuring that commercial uses best serve the primary goal of good and affordable housing in this particular case. After all, downtown is only a very short walk away.
In response to Rich’s comments :
“. . . 99.27% of people in Davis (including you in Woodland, Bobby) will
not be directly affected by this rezoning, and thus most people were not
paying close attention . . . .”
Regardless of whether persons are “directly affected” (i.e., live within
or very near this neighborhood – or are financially invested in it), the
dimensions and effects of this redevelopment project will meaningfully
influence salient characteristics of the City of Davis, which is of
significant interest to many folks, especially its general residents.
I surely realize that many times public attention and focus are quite
difficult to obtain, and that representatives are elected to serve the
public interest. What I would seek to clarify and understand, and perhaps
contest, is the precise nature of policy / political / developmental —
inertia — at hand in this particular case.
Also, relevant questions easily arise regarding the confined scope of the
EIR, and what interests might justify (or fail to support) that specific
course of project evaluation. Was there a conclusory method of project
conceptualization, which attempted to avoid consideration and evaluation
of desirable alternatives, combined with process designed to suit it?
When I state that, “(at least) serious consideration of
reconceptualization of this project is likely the best political course,”
I’m responding to several other comments which describe a council majority
politically determined to “move this project forward,” whatever that
precisely means.
Obtaining the best policy course is entirely dependent upon the political
course. Actually, Rich, I’m asking this “sensible question” about whether
or not the current project is truly the best policy course, in this
fashion, by suggesting (with judgment somewhat in abeyance) that if it
hasn’t yet occurred, “serious consideration [of robust alternatives] is
the best political course.”
Some sort of redevelopment project may well be very desirable for this
area of town, but such a project should justify itself within the present,
not be weighted toward approval for the sake of past (and perhaps infirm)
political processes.
My focus is within this “policy debate,” as you later describe it, which
is duly linked to relevant political policymakers.
Some comments have mentioned the concept of improving the transition /
connection zone between the campus and downtown, this neighborhood being
that zone. Variously improving this neighborhood is good by definition,
but not dependent on this particular project.
Language and references within the existing project’s concept of enhancing
this ‘transition’ area should be very carefully scrutinized, not accepted
at face value.
I believe there is a key element of ‘open space’ value to be found in the
relatively under-developed (at today’s planning standard) character of
this “old college town” neighborhood.
Other comments have also expressed aesthetic perspectives along these
lines, declaring that such values warrant due influence — at the very
outset of project planning — not being confined to marginal mitigations
toward the end of the process.
Perhaps, as it seems and some have said, due consideration to robust and
creative alternatives which might have better preserved these key values
was meaningfully absent from the process.
Rich, I’m confused about your remark that “this is a policy debate and we
are addressing this question in a reasonable manner, in contradistinction
to your reconceptualization assertion.”
I’m indeed implying, through earlier comment and herein, that perhaps this
project was mis-conceptualized (- somehow conclusory, best options
according to the proper scope of values not truly identified -) at its
outset, and I don’t believe I’m alone with that concern. This viewpoint is
an integral part of the present “policy debate.”
I believe that recent attention of the Vanguard to this project will
assist this policy debate in a reasonable and productive manner.
In response to don shor :
I don’t mean to exclude favorable mixing of residential and commercial
uses, just to emphasize that (in my view, in this context) housing is
actually the primary goal, with commercial uses (and everything they
entail) being carefully integrated toward best enhancing it.
As you say, don,
“I also don’t think those goals are mutually exclusive.”
I’m simply expressing the priority of assuring that commercial uses best serve the primary goal of good and affordable housing in this particular case. After all, downtown is only a very short walk away.
In response to Rich’s comments :
“. . . 99.27% of people in Davis (including you in Woodland, Bobby) will
not be directly affected by this rezoning, and thus most people were not
paying close attention . . . .”
Regardless of whether persons are “directly affected” (i.e., live within
or very near this neighborhood – or are financially invested in it), the
dimensions and effects of this redevelopment project will meaningfully
influence salient characteristics of the City of Davis, which is of
significant interest to many folks, especially its general residents.
I surely realize that many times public attention and focus are quite
difficult to obtain, and that representatives are elected to serve the
public interest. What I would seek to clarify and understand, and perhaps
contest, is the precise nature of policy / political / developmental —
inertia — at hand in this particular case.
Also, relevant questions easily arise regarding the confined scope of the
EIR, and what interests might justify (or fail to support) that specific
course of project evaluation. Was there a conclusory method of project
conceptualization, which attempted to avoid consideration and evaluation
of desirable alternatives, combined with process designed to suit it?
When I state that, “(at least) serious consideration of
reconceptualization of this project is likely the best political course,”
I’m responding to several other comments which describe a council majority
politically determined to “move this project forward,” whatever that
precisely means.
Obtaining the best policy course is entirely dependent upon the political
course. Actually, Rich, I’m asking this “sensible question” about whether
or not the current project is truly the best policy course, in this
fashion, by suggesting (with judgment somewhat in abeyance) that if it
hasn’t yet occurred, “serious consideration [of robust alternatives] is
the best political course.”
Some sort of redevelopment project may well be very desirable for this
area of town, but such a project should justify itself within the present,
not be weighted toward approval for the sake of past (and perhaps infirm)
political processes.
My focus is within this “policy debate,” as you later describe it, which
is duly linked to relevant political policymakers.
Some comments have mentioned the concept of improving the transition /
connection zone between the campus and downtown, this neighborhood being
that zone. Variously improving this neighborhood is good by definition,
but not dependent on this particular project.
Language and references within the existing project’s concept of enhancing
this ‘transition’ area should be very carefully scrutinized, not accepted
at face value.
I believe there is a key element of ‘open space’ value to be found in the
relatively under-developed (at today’s planning standard) character of
this “old college town” neighborhood.
Other comments have also expressed aesthetic perspectives along these
lines, declaring that such values warrant due influence — at the very
outset of project planning — not being confined to marginal mitigations
toward the end of the process.
Perhaps, as it seems and some have said, due consideration to robust and
creative alternatives which might have better preserved these key values
was meaningfully absent from the process.
Rich, I’m confused about your remark that “this is a policy debate and we
are addressing this question in a reasonable manner, in contradistinction
to your reconceptualization assertion.”
I’m indeed implying, through earlier comment and herein, that perhaps this
project was mis-conceptualized (- somehow conclusory, best options
according to the proper scope of values not truly identified -) at its
outset, and I don’t believe I’m alone with that concern. This viewpoint is
an integral part of the present “policy debate.”
I believe that recent attention of the Vanguard to this project will
assist this policy debate in a reasonable and productive manner.
In response to don shor :
I don’t mean to exclude favorable mixing of residential and commercial
uses, just to emphasize that (in my view, in this context) housing is
actually the primary goal, with commercial uses (and everything they
entail) being carefully integrated toward best enhancing it.
As you say, don,
“I also don’t think those goals are mutually exclusive.”
I’m simply expressing the priority of assuring that commercial uses best serve the primary goal of good and affordable housing in this particular case. After all, downtown is only a very short walk away.
As a student who lives in the section of town being discusses I would like to add my 2 cents. I am conflicted on the issue of redeveloping this area. I concur that the A and B street section of downtown has the most “college town” feel of any part of Davis. I feel that any redevelopment should enhance rather than take away from that.
A critical part of any such redevelopment must be affordable student housing. I actually like the Davis mixed use development model, because it makes for a higher density with structures that are visually appealing, however thus far the actual results that I’ve seen from these new structures are disappointing. The lower levels have either been unfordable stores or offices and the housing in these structures tend to be overpriced condos or apartments that are totally out of reach to most students. This is ridiculous. Getting more students downtown, especially at night would improve both quality of the area and the lives of all Davis residents.
More student population downtown means that more parties and student oriented events would be out of the suburbanized neighborhoods where they are a thorn in the side of families and older residents. Not only that but students who live within walking distance of downtown would mean more people out and about at night. This has the twofold benefit of making the area safer (less of a ghost town feel after 11pm) and encouraging businesses that cater to students (can’t we get just a couple places that stay open after midnight?).
Personally I think there needs to be a compromise reached where an area near downtown is redeveloped with students in mind, without creating a college ghetto like Isla Vista. I think the obvious solution to this is to keep A and B a mixed area similar to what it is now, and instead focus on the area between G an L streets as a future student dense part of town. This part of town is perfect since its not an ideal spot for families with the noisy and dangerous trains and it hasn’t seen too much redevelopment in recent history. I personally think it would be great to see several 5 or 6 story apartment buildings in this area. This would be great for students since they would be close to downtown and campus. More importantly such a move would make downtown much livelier, which benefits everyone.
I don’t think Davis is totally anti-student, but I do think long term residents need to engage the student population and create a dialog rather than view us as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
As a student who lives in the section of town being discusses I would like to add my 2 cents. I am conflicted on the issue of redeveloping this area. I concur that the A and B street section of downtown has the most “college town” feel of any part of Davis. I feel that any redevelopment should enhance rather than take away from that.
A critical part of any such redevelopment must be affordable student housing. I actually like the Davis mixed use development model, because it makes for a higher density with structures that are visually appealing, however thus far the actual results that I’ve seen from these new structures are disappointing. The lower levels have either been unfordable stores or offices and the housing in these structures tend to be overpriced condos or apartments that are totally out of reach to most students. This is ridiculous. Getting more students downtown, especially at night would improve both quality of the area and the lives of all Davis residents.
More student population downtown means that more parties and student oriented events would be out of the suburbanized neighborhoods where they are a thorn in the side of families and older residents. Not only that but students who live within walking distance of downtown would mean more people out and about at night. This has the twofold benefit of making the area safer (less of a ghost town feel after 11pm) and encouraging businesses that cater to students (can’t we get just a couple places that stay open after midnight?).
Personally I think there needs to be a compromise reached where an area near downtown is redeveloped with students in mind, without creating a college ghetto like Isla Vista. I think the obvious solution to this is to keep A and B a mixed area similar to what it is now, and instead focus on the area between G an L streets as a future student dense part of town. This part of town is perfect since its not an ideal spot for families with the noisy and dangerous trains and it hasn’t seen too much redevelopment in recent history. I personally think it would be great to see several 5 or 6 story apartment buildings in this area. This would be great for students since they would be close to downtown and campus. More importantly such a move would make downtown much livelier, which benefits everyone.
I don’t think Davis is totally anti-student, but I do think long term residents need to engage the student population and create a dialog rather than view us as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
As a student who lives in the section of town being discusses I would like to add my 2 cents. I am conflicted on the issue of redeveloping this area. I concur that the A and B street section of downtown has the most “college town” feel of any part of Davis. I feel that any redevelopment should enhance rather than take away from that.
A critical part of any such redevelopment must be affordable student housing. I actually like the Davis mixed use development model, because it makes for a higher density with structures that are visually appealing, however thus far the actual results that I’ve seen from these new structures are disappointing. The lower levels have either been unfordable stores or offices and the housing in these structures tend to be overpriced condos or apartments that are totally out of reach to most students. This is ridiculous. Getting more students downtown, especially at night would improve both quality of the area and the lives of all Davis residents.
More student population downtown means that more parties and student oriented events would be out of the suburbanized neighborhoods where they are a thorn in the side of families and older residents. Not only that but students who live within walking distance of downtown would mean more people out and about at night. This has the twofold benefit of making the area safer (less of a ghost town feel after 11pm) and encouraging businesses that cater to students (can’t we get just a couple places that stay open after midnight?).
Personally I think there needs to be a compromise reached where an area near downtown is redeveloped with students in mind, without creating a college ghetto like Isla Vista. I think the obvious solution to this is to keep A and B a mixed area similar to what it is now, and instead focus on the area between G an L streets as a future student dense part of town. This part of town is perfect since its not an ideal spot for families with the noisy and dangerous trains and it hasn’t seen too much redevelopment in recent history. I personally think it would be great to see several 5 or 6 story apartment buildings in this area. This would be great for students since they would be close to downtown and campus. More importantly such a move would make downtown much livelier, which benefits everyone.
I don’t think Davis is totally anti-student, but I do think long term residents need to engage the student population and create a dialog rather than view us as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
As a student who lives in the section of town being discusses I would like to add my 2 cents. I am conflicted on the issue of redeveloping this area. I concur that the A and B street section of downtown has the most “college town” feel of any part of Davis. I feel that any redevelopment should enhance rather than take away from that.
A critical part of any such redevelopment must be affordable student housing. I actually like the Davis mixed use development model, because it makes for a higher density with structures that are visually appealing, however thus far the actual results that I’ve seen from these new structures are disappointing. The lower levels have either been unfordable stores or offices and the housing in these structures tend to be overpriced condos or apartments that are totally out of reach to most students. This is ridiculous. Getting more students downtown, especially at night would improve both quality of the area and the lives of all Davis residents.
More student population downtown means that more parties and student oriented events would be out of the suburbanized neighborhoods where they are a thorn in the side of families and older residents. Not only that but students who live within walking distance of downtown would mean more people out and about at night. This has the twofold benefit of making the area safer (less of a ghost town feel after 11pm) and encouraging businesses that cater to students (can’t we get just a couple places that stay open after midnight?).
Personally I think there needs to be a compromise reached where an area near downtown is redeveloped with students in mind, without creating a college ghetto like Isla Vista. I think the obvious solution to this is to keep A and B a mixed area similar to what it is now, and instead focus on the area between G an L streets as a future student dense part of town. This part of town is perfect since its not an ideal spot for families with the noisy and dangerous trains and it hasn’t seen too much redevelopment in recent history. I personally think it would be great to see several 5 or 6 story apartment buildings in this area. This would be great for students since they would be close to downtown and campus. More importantly such a move would make downtown much livelier, which benefits everyone.
I don’t think Davis is totally anti-student, but I do think long term residents need to engage the student population and create a dialog rather than view us as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
hear, hear.
hear, hear.
hear, hear.
hear, hear.